Maplewood Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received personalised care that holistically met their needs. People had access to everything they might need and were encouraged to access and experience things important and beneficial to them. People received dignified care at the end of their lives and their loved one’s felt supported by compassionate staff. People received continuity of care from staff who knew them well. People, relatives and staff at Maplewood Court Care home felt involved in the service and listened too.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People felt they received person-centred care. One person said, “I am amazed that they know everyone so well. They are all lovely.” A relative told us staff helped their loved one to be engaged which was important to them. Another relative shared, ‘. Team members are kind, well trained and have an individual approach to each and every resident.’

Staff felt they provided personalised care for people. One staff member said, “It is person-centred care, we don’t have set things that we do, it’s their choice, what they do and how [care] will be.” Staff told us they spoke to people to discover how people would like their care and recorded it in their care plans to ensure all staff delivered personalised care in line with people’s wishes and preferences. Staff gave examples of the person-centred care that people received such as routines people had for breakfast.

Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s preferences in all areas. For example, food likes and dislikes, gender preferences of people giving their personal care and their preferred routines, for example, their nighttime routine. People and their relatives were routinely involved in their care and support decisions.

People felt they received appropriate care, which met their needs. A relative shared, ‘The care home is managed with professionalism but also empathy for the age, health and well-being of the residents.’ People received continuity of care from a stable staff team.

Staff told us they worked well together to ensure people received good care. Staff told us they worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were fully met. Staff told us about the systems and process in place to ensure people received continuity of care such as handovers to ensure all staff were aware of people’s needs and how to meet them.

Feedback from partners was positive about the care provision from Maplewood Court Care Home. A professional fed back, ‘If the care home are concerned about a patient, they will email us the observations, MEWS score and how the patient is managing. This helps our management team triage the case effectively and are able to hand over the concern to a GP in an appropriate manner.’ MEWS refers to a tool called Modified Early Warning Score which is used to monitor people who appear unwell and helps inform a clinical response. This promoted good care provision across services and allowed for full effective integration of treatment plans.

Staff were usually allocated to the same area of the service. This gave both staff and people the opportunity to get to know each other well. Staff were moved to different parts of the service if it was necessary, for example, to cover absences or meet additional needs.

Most people and relatives felt the staff communicated with them well and they received information they needed. One person told us, “They will let me know what is going on and come and get me.” Another said, “We have a weekly planner, but they don’t always let me know about big events that are happening.” Relatives told us they could obtain information from a range of sources such as meetings, emails and social media.

Staff gave us various examples of how they adapted their communication with people depending on their needs. Staff made adjustments to help support people to understand and share in communication such as using visual aids, changes in volume, rate of speech and language used.

Communication care plans were clear with good instructions for staff to follow to support people to have maximum opportunity to understand and engage in their care. Any equipment required to support people to receive information and understand it was documented, such as hearing aids and glasses. Care notes indicated staff encouraged people to use these. There were systems in place to ensure people and their relatives received information such as meetings and reviews.

Both people and relatives felt that their concerns would be listened to and acted on. For example, one person told us they had complained about the chips, they told us the provider had changed and these were better. A relative shared, ‘Management is approachable and always deals with any minor issue or concern efficiently - even out of hours.’ Relatives felt involved in the home. A relative commented, ‘connecting with other relatives at the regular meetings has been an added bonus for me.’

Staff and leaders told us they listened to people and involved them in their care. Staff told us they supported people to share their views of the service for example through their care plan reviews. One staff member said, “Ask what they think, day to day feedback with meals and simple things. Act on feedback in the moment to sort it out quickly.” The registered manager told us they oversaw complaints and gave an example of the most recent complaint and the action they were taking in good faith to resolve the complaint.

There were various systems and processes in place to seek the views of people using the service and their relatives. We saw QR codes around the building encouraging people to give feedback, there were meetings and surveys to seek feedback from people and those important to them. We saw complaints had been dealt with appropriately and the service had received compliments about the care they provided from people, relatives and other professionals. Actions from the feedback received were added to the service’s development plan. The service acted on feedback, for example, a lamp had been placed in an area where a person liked to read at their request and there was an appreciation book on one of the units which was there following a recommendation from a relative.

People felt they had access to the things they needed to ensure they received good quality care. A person said, “I’m sure I have everything I need.” A relative told us, “[Loved one] has access to everything [they] need from Chiropodist, hairdressers and spending time in the gardens.” We observed the service was accessible for people, with wide, unobstructed corridors and handrails. Signage was displayed using pictures and words to help people find their way around. We heard staff asking a person if they needed their glasses or wanted them positioned closer and checking the person was happy before leaving them.

The registered manager told us the service had been designed to support equity in access for people. Examples included the memory unit had been made more user friendly by painting people’s doors different colours along with memory boxes outside to help people identify their rooms. There was a lift and accessible gardens for people with physical impairments.

Feedback from professionals who worked with the service told us that equality and diversity was promoted within the home. A professional told us the service had supported a person to access an activity to help remain part of the wider community which the manager reported had lifted the person’s mood.

Systems and processes at Maplewood Court Care Home supported people to have equal access to whatever care and support they needed. Each person’s care plan was personalised. People had access to other healthcare professionals when they needed this. People were invited to give their feedback in a variety of ways to support everyone to be able to do this. Feedback was used to improve the service and experience of living in Maplewood Court.

People and most relatives were positive about their experiences and outcomes from the care they received at Maplewood Court Care Home. One person told us, “I don’t join in the activities at the moment, but the activity staff come in for a chat and keep me informed of what is happening. I thought they were joking when they asked if I wanted to meet the Shetland pony, but they weren’t which was a wonderful experience.” One relative shared a concern with us that they felt their loved one’s cultural needs had not always been met. However, the relative shared they had given this feedback to the service and the registered manager had taken action. The registered manager gave us examples of how they had tried to meet the cultural needs of the person.

Staff described how they supported people to have equal opportunities within the service. Staff told us they had received in house training to help them understand peoples different experiences based on their needs and how the training they had received had made them more mindful when supporting people to improve their experience.

People had access to a range of activities depending on their preferences. Some people enjoyed going out to cafes, garden centres or just for a drive. Physical exercise was actively encouraged and was a daily feature on the activity calendar. The activity team knew people well and knew what they enjoyed doing and what activities they preferred not to engage in. Activities were adapted for people who were cared for in bed and regular one to one sessions were provided.

People were supported to make plans for the future. People told us staff helped them to make plans to improve their health and their well-being. One person told us about planned trips out in the local area which people enjoyed. A relative spoke about their experience of their loved one’s end of life care. They shared, ‘[Loved one] spent [their] final days in Maplewood Court and the staff were nothing short of being supportive, dignified and respectful.

Staff and leaders spoke to us about how they supported people to make future plans and have aspirations. The general manager gave us an example of how a person had always wanted to meet a television personality and the steps they took which enabled this to happen.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and their future plans, where they had the capacity to do so. Best interest decisions were documented, and capacity assessments undertaken. Care plans included clear instructions about people’s wishes at the end of their lives and staff were aware of these. Some people declined to discuss this element of their care and their wishes were respected and their decisions documented. Staff worked closely with hospice teams to support people at the end of their lives, providing appropriate medicines to ensure people were kept comfortable.