We carried out a review of the data available to us about Maple Leaf House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Maple Leaf House, you can give feedback on this service.
Maple Leaf House is a care home service with nursing, it provides personal and nursing care to young adults, older people, people with mental health conditions or dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people using the service. The service can support up to 30 people.
The building is purpose built and set over three floors with lift access to all floors. People have their own rooms with private facilities and there is a courtyard and garden area.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We made a recommendation around supporting people with orientation in the home.
People were safe. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to ensure safe care continued.
Staff had received training and could recognise signs of abuse and knew when and how to report it.
Safe recruitment procedures meant that suitable staff were employed.
Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely.
Infection control measures were in place.
People’s choices, lifestyle, religion and culture as well as their personal and health care needs were planned into care delivery.
People were supported to access health care services when needed.
Staff had been trained and had the skills needed to do their job.
People’s needs were met by good planning and coordination of care.
Pre-admission assessments took place to ensure the service could meet people’s needs prior to care starting.
A complaints procedure was in place and complaints were responded to in line with the policy.
The provider, management team and staff had developed an open and honest culture, people and staff found them friendly and supportive.
The manager had good oversight of the service from the quality monitoring processes.
Learning and skill development was actively encouraged, and staff felt confident in their role.
The manager worked in partnership with other professionals to strive for good outcomes for people who used the service.
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 December 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last comprehensive inspection on 25 February and 1 March 2016 we identified two breaches in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were in relation to medicine management and governance. As the provider had not complied with the required standards, we issued them with a warning notice in relation to medicines and asked them to improve. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for ‘Maple Leaf House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk, the service was rated.' At that inspection we rated the home as “Requires Improvement”
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on the 19 July 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met the legal requirements. We found the improvements needed to ensure the safe management of medicines had been made. Following this focused inspection the rating of the key question “Safe” was changed from “Requires Improvement” to “Good” however the overall rating of the home remained as “Requires Improvement.”
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and sustained and the provider was now meeting the legal requirements.
A registered manager was 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. Following our inspection the registered manager left the home to work for another home owned by the provider. At the time of writing the report a new manager is in the process of registering with us.
The home provided safe care for people who lived at Maple Leaf House. There were enough skilled and knowledgeable staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff were deployed effectively to support safe care. The provider undertook comprehensive checks on the suitability of prospective staff to work at the home.
Staff had received training which gave them the knowledge and skills they needed to provide effective care. Staff had a detailed knowledge and understanding of people's needs which further supported their training and helped to provide personalised care.
Some of the people who lived at the home lived with dementia. Staff knew how to support people with dementia well. They understood the importance of accepting the person's reality and working alongside it, providing re-assurance and support. Staff also understood the importance of gaining people's consent before undertaking any task on their behalf, or before supporting a person with that task.
People were happy, settled and demonstrated positive relationships with staff. Relatives and visitors told us they were welcomed when they visited.
People enjoyed the meals provided and had a range of choices throughout the day. The meal time experience was a pleasant occasion. People were offered a range of drinks throughout the day so they were not thirsty.
People had a range of activities to engage them during the day and the registered manager at the time of our inspection was working with an external company to improve on the activities offered.
Staff were alert to risks associated with people's care. When people required the support of healthcare professionals, the home’s staff ensured they were referred in a timely way. Staff acted on the advice of the healthcare professionals involved in people's care.
Staff felt well supported by the registered manager at the time of our inspection and their senior team. They received individual support, an induction and training to provide them with skills and knowledge needed for their roles. Staff felt able to speak with the management team if they had any concerns. The registered manager at the time of our inspection felt well supported by the provider.
Staff and the management of the home worked well as a team. The registered manager at the time of our inspection listened and acted on any areas of concern raised by people or their families. They asked people and their relatives to complete questionnaires about the quality of care, and responded to any areas people were not as satisfied with. The registered manager at the time of our inspection demonstrated a real passion for improving the quality of care people received at Maple Leaf House .
The home had a manager but they were not registered with us. They had been appointed following our last 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.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 February and 1 March 2016 at which we identified a breach in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to medicine management. As a result of the breach of the legal requirements and the impact this had on people who lived at Maple Leaf House, we rated the key question of ‘Safe’ as ‘Requires improvement’. As the provider had not complied with the required standards, we issued them with a warning notice and asked them to improve. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for ‘Maple Leaf House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on the 19 July 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met the legal requirements. We found the improvements needed to ensure the safe management of medicines had been made.
The home had a manager but they were not registered with us and had only been in position for three weeks. After our visit we were informed that this person had left their employment at the service and a new manager had been appointed. They were due to commence their employment shortly. 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 last comprehensive inspection this provider was placed into special measures by the CQC. This inspection found that there was enough improvement overall to take the provider out of special measures.
At our previous inspection on 8 and 14 October 2015, the provider was not meeting the required standards. We identified four breaches in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to improve staff training, the arrangements for safeguarding people and to improve the management of risks. This included risks associated with medicine management. The provider was also required to develop systems and processes to check and improve the quality and safety of the care and service people received. The provider sent us an action plan which stated action would be taken to ensure the required improvements were implemented by no later than January 2016.
During this inspection we checked whether improvements had been made. We found sufficient action had been taken in response to two out of the four breaches in regulations. Further improvements and action was needed to address the breach in Regulation 12 related to how people’s medicines were managed. Also Regulation 17 related to having systems and processes that were effective in improving the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. The provider was continuing to work to ensure on-going improvements were maintained.
Medicines were not managed effectively because staff were not working to a clear policy and procedure that demonstrated safe practice. The provider was asked to take immediate action following the first day of our inspection to ensure this was addressed. The provider responded by undertaking some initial actions to improve safety of medicine storage, however, further work was required to ensure safe medicine management in the home.
The provider had implemented quality monitoring systems and processes to assess if people were receiving a quality service and to determine if staff felt the home was operating effectively. Whilst people and staff were positive in many of their comments about the home, there were areas identified for improvement that had not been sufficiently actioned. We also found audit processes were not always accurately completed to ensure they were effective in identifying areas for improvement.
There was a system to record complaints and people told us they felt able to approach the manager if they had any concerns. However, complaints had not always been recorded in a central record and they had not always been responded to in writing to demonstrate the action taken in response to them. Discussions with staff and people suggested sometimes complaints were addressed satisfactorily, but at other times they were not always resolved to people’s satisfaction.
People we spoke with were positive about the home and we saw they were relaxed and content around staff to help them feel safe. Relatives of people living at the home felt their family members were well looked after and safe at the home. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the risks associated with their care. However, information about risks was not always sufficiently detailed in care plans to ensure there was a consistent approach by staff in managing them to keep people safe from harm.
Staff had completed training to help them manage people’s behaviours that were challenging. Staff told us the training had helped them to understand better how to manage people’s behaviours. They told us people were calmer and more relaxed in the home. Staff received ongoing training to help them further develop their skills to support people’s needs safely and effectively. This had resulted in a reduction in accidents and incidents at the home.
The provider had sought support from the Local Authority to ensure they were meeting their legal responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This was to ensure people were not subject to restrictions in how they lived their lives without these being authorised. Applications had been completed to seek authorisation for restrictions placed on people in order to meet their needs and keep them safe.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and staff felt there were sufficient staff available most of the time. New staff went through recruitment checks to ensure their suitability prior to working with people in the home.
Staff supported people to undertake social activities of their choice when possible. However, information in care plans did not always support staff in delivering person centred care because it was not sufficiently detailed with information such as people’s daily preferences and past histories.
People had a choice of meals and most comments were positive about the food provided. People were prompted or assisted to eat where this support was needed.
This inspection took place on 8 and 14 October 2015 and was unannounced. Maple Leaf House is a care home which provides care for up to 30 people. This includes older people, younger adults and people with mental health conditions including dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 16 people living at the home.
The home had a manager but they were not registered with us. 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 we spoke with told us they liked living at the home and felt safe. However, we found risks associated with their care were not being identified and effectively managed to keep them and staff safe from harm.
Medicines were not always managed effectively. Sometimes medicines prescribed for people had not been given and it was not clear from records why this was. In some cases people had not been given the medicine they needed to manage their health conditions because it was out of stock. Staff competencies in regards to medicine management were not routinely checked to ensure safe medicine management within the home.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs on the day of our visit, but we could not be confident this was always the case because duty rotas were not accurate. New staff went through recruitment checks to ensure their suitability prior to working with people in the home.
People were positive in their comments about living at the home but some people’s needs were not being met effectively. This particularly applied to those people who had behaviours that challenged themselves, staff and others. This was because many staff had not completed training linked to people’s needs to support them in their role.
People had a choice of meals and most comments were positive about the food provided. We saw people who needed assistance to eat were not rushed and were supported to eat at their own pace. Where people had additional needs associated with eating and drinking, advice had been sought from a health professional although this was not always followed.
The provider was not meeting their legal responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. There were people in the home who were subject to restrictions in regards to their care which had not been authorised by the local authority.
The service was not consistently responsive to people's needs. Although people's choices were mostly respected and listened to, people who had difficulties communicating had limited stimulation and opportunities for their social care needs to be met. A lack of background information about people’s interests and preferences meant there were people who did not experience person centred care.
There was a system to record complaints and people told us they felt able to approach the manager if they had any concerns. However, complaints had not always been recorded in a way that would enable the provider to monitor them and ensure people were satisfied with the responses made.
The provider and manager did not have sufficient systems and processes in place to assure themselves that the home was providing a quality service to people. People had limited opportunities to provide their opinions of the service and to be involved in decisions related to their care. Audit processes were not effective in ensuring sufficient improvements to the service were made in a timely manner.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service will therefore be placed in ‘Special measures’.
Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.
The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.
If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.
For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.