• Care Home
  • Care home

Mapperley Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

24 Ebers Road, Mapperley Park, Nottingham, NG3 5DZ (0115) 960 3675

Provided and run by:
Heathcotes Care Limited

All Inspections

15 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Mapperley Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to 6 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 7 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Right Support: Model of Care and setting that maximises people’s choice, control and independence. Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choices, control and independence over their own lives. Staff understood people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people experienced fulfilling everyday lives. People were provided with a safe, clean, well equipped environment that met their sensory and physical needs. People were involved in personalising their rooms in the service. Staff supported people with their medicines in a safe way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcomes. Staff ensured people had full access to health and social care to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care: Care is person-centred and promotes people’s dignity, privacy and human rights.

People received support from kind staff who understood and responded to their individual needs. Staff were respectful of people's privacy and dignity and ensured this was upheld. Staff understood how to protect people from potential abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff were trained in how to recognise and report abuse and understood their responsibility to do so. The service had a consistent skilled staff team, who met people's needs and kept them safe. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs, so people received consistent care.

Right Culture: The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

People led inclusive lives because of the organisational values and staff qualities. People received quality care and support because sufficient numbers of skilled staff understood their specific needs. People were supported by a staff team who understood the needs a person living with mental health, learning disability and/or autistic person may have. Staff knew and understood people’s cultural preferences and were responsive to their needs. Staff ensured people received support and encouragement to be as independent as possible and fulfil their aspirations.

People told us or communicated to us they were happy living at the service. Relatives gave feedback their family members were safe living at Mapperley Lodge. The service has created a homely atmosphere, where people and staff are happy and comfortable in the company of each other.

The registered manager and operations manager had implemented effective checks and audits on the quality and safety of the service. When shortfalls were identified, action was taken to address these.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The service has a new provider. The last rating for this service under the previous provider was Good (published 23 January 2018).

Why we inspected

We inspected this service due to the length of time since the previous inspection.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has remained Good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mapperley Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

18 December 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 18 December 2017. The inspection was announced.

Heathcotes (Mapperley Lodge) is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Heathcotes (Mapperley Lodge) accommodates seven people living with mental health needs and or learning disabilities and an autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of our inspection seven people were living at the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good’.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons.' Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People remained safe because they were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and understood their role and responsibility in protecting them from avoidable harm. Risks in relation to people's needs including the environment were assessed, planned and monitored. There were sufficient staff employed to support people. People received their prescribed medicines safely. People lived in a clean, hygienic service. Staff supported people effectively during periods of anxiety that affected their mood and behaviour. Accidents and incidents were reported, monitored and reviewed to consider the action required to reduce further reoccurrence.

People continued to receive an effective service because their needs were assessed and understood by staff. Staff received an appropriate induction, ongoing training and supervision that supported them to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s dietary needs had been assessed and planned for and they received a choice of meals and drinks. Some improvements were required to ensure there was sufficient food stocks at all times. Systems were in place to share relevant information with other organisations to ensure people’s needs were known and understood. People were supported to access healthcare services and their health needs had been assessed and were monitored. The premise met people’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Applications had been made when required to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards supervisory body.

People continued to receive good care. Staff were kind, caring and showed empathy and respect. Independence was promoted and staff had a good understanding of people’s diverse needs, preferences, routines and personal histories. People were supported to access independent advocacy service when required.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People who used the service were involved as fully as possible in their care and support. People’s received opportunities to be supported with activities, interests and hobbies of their choice. Support plans focussed on their individual needs. People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. People had access to the registered provider’s complaints procedure. People’s end of life wishes had been discussed with them.

The service continued to be well-led. There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued. People who used the service, relatives, staff and external professionals spoke positively about the registered manager. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements when needed.

17 November 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 17 November 2015.

At our last inspection 4 April 2014 we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 18 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. This Regulation corresponds to Regulation 11 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following this inspection we received an action plan in which the provider told us about the actions they would take to meet the relevant legal requirements. During this inspection we found that the provider had met this breach in regulation.

Heathcotes (Mapperley Lodge) provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people with mental health needs, physical needs and people living with a learning disability. Accommodation is provided over three floors and a passenger lift is in place. Seven people were living at the service at the time of the inspection.

Heathcotes (Mapperley Lodge) is required to have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of the inspection a registered manager was in post. There was also a home manager who was training to become the registered manager for the service.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. The provider had a safe recruitment procedure in place that ensured people were cared for by suitable staff. Medicines were stored and administered safely and the premises were well maintained to keep people safe.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate action was taken to reduce further risks. The service worked with health and social care professionals for advice and support in meeting people’s needs.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental capacity Act 2005 (MCA.) This is legislation that protects people who are unable to make specific decisions about their care and treatment. It ensures best interest decisions are made correctly and a person’s liberty and freedom is not unlawfully restricted. We found people’s human right were protected because the MCA were understood by the home manager and staff.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and were offered food choices that met people’s preferences and cultural and religious needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s healthcare needs and people were supported to access healthcare services to maintain their health. Staff spoke positively about working at the service. They were knowledgeable about people’s needs, preferences and life experiences. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff received formal and regular support to discuss and review their learning and development needs. Staff received an induction and ongoing training that reflected the needs of the people that they cared for.

People, relatives and health and social care professionals we spoke with were positive about the care and approach of staff. Staff were found to be caring and compassionate towards people they supported.

People’s preferences, routines and what was important to them had been assessed. Support was provided to enable people to pursue their interests and hobbies. People were involved in the development and review of the care and support they received.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was available for people in an appropriate format to meet their communication needs. People were supported to access independent advocacy services.

The provider had effective checks and audits in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. People that used the service received opportunities to give their feedback about the service they received.

02/04/2014

During a routine inspection

Heathcotes (Mapperley Lodge) is a care home providing accommodation for up to seven people. There were six people living there when we visited. The service provides care and support to adults who have a learning disability, a mental health illness or physical disability. Mapperley Lodge is a new service who registered with CQC six months prior to our visit and so people had only been living in the home for a few months. There is a manager registered at the service, who is also the regional manager. There is also a manager who is responsible for the day to day running of the service. The registered manager told us the manager also plans to register with the CQC.

People told us they felt safe in the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements for staff to respond appropriately to people who communicated through their behaviour.

We found that there were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported to take informed risks to ensure they were not restricted. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not being fully adhered to ensure staff made decisions based on people’s best interests. For example, staff were making decisions about people going into the community alone and about how many cigarettes they smoked but there was no formal assessment of people’s capacity to make these decisions themselves. This was a breach of regulation and you can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

There were processes in place to gain the views of people in relation to their care and support. People’s preferences and needs were recorded in their care plans and staff were following the plans in practice. Records and observations showed that the risks around nutrition and hydration were monitored and managed by staff to ensure everone received adequate food and drink.

We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. There was a clear set of values in place to support staff to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the home. People told us they got on with the staff. One person said, "They always have time and I can talk to them, they listen to what I have to say."

Staff were able to describe examples of where they had responded to what was important to individuals living in the home. People knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern and there were processes in place for responding to concerns. The manager told us there had not been any complaints made by people living in the home or their significant others. There were plans in place for people to meet with an advocate so that people were aware of how they could use an advocacy service. Advocates are trained professionals who support, enable and empower people to speak up.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans, in resonse to audits and incidents, and the following up of these ensured continuous improvement. Staff were supported to challenge when they felt there could be improvements and there was an open and transparent culture in the home.

The provider had asked for people’s views on the service and we saw one relative had said, "I am impressed by how professional the staff are and also the staffing levels." Another relative had said, "[My relative] has improved in many ways since moving here."

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. (The deprivation of liberty safeguards are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice.)

We looked at whether the service was applying the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DOLS) appropriately. These safeguards protect the rights of adults using services by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by professionals who are trained to assess whether the restriction is needed. The manager told us there was no one living in the home currently who needed to be on an authorisation. We saw no evidence to suggest that anyone living in the home was being deprived of their liberty. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

2 April 2014

During an inspection