Maple Court

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

We assessed 3 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with the scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. Relatives fed back their concerns about the limited communication they had with the service. People and their relatives were not involved in the creation of their care plans. There were limited opportunities for people to engage with activities or have stimulation. The provider had a complaints policy but there was limited evidence to support how this was driving improvement. People’s views on their end-of-life care was sought, but staff required training in this area.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they wanted more activities based on their personal preferences, along with more community engagement. Comments included, “There isn’t a lot to do. I wish we could go out more” and, “There’s nothing much to do, apart from watching telly.” People were, however, positive about the new activity coordinators and the work they were trying to do; a person described this as, “a new layer of care they are giving.” People were not included in creating their care plans. For example, a relative told us they had not been involved in any assessment of their relative’s care, nor had they reviewed or seen any of the documentation. Relatives told us they were not consistently involved in decisions about their family members care and support, and their opinions were not always listened to or acted on.

The registered manager acknowledged more could be done to make the environment enriching for people but noted some recent improvements with activities. This included a daily offering of activities. Documentation had been implemented for staff to detail what activities people had done. The registered manager told us they were working to improve people’s involvement in care planning.

On the first day of inspection, we observed staff putting both the television and music on in each lounge; nobody was offered a choice about this. Staff moved continually throughout the building, but engagement was generally task related, such as assistance with personal care or eating. We did, however, observe staff offering people some choices.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

There was mixed feedback about whether issues were effectively addressed or acknowledged. For example, one person told us, “You mention things [to the managers] and nothing gets followed up. You just repeat yourself.” People’s relatives also told us there was limited communication between them and the service and some didn’t feel their opinions were always listened to or acted upon.

The registered manager was aware of the difficulties there had been with communication and involving people and their relatives. They were looking at positive ways to improve communication with people and their relatives including re-starting relative meetings. The registered manager was also looking at ways to improve the recording of people’s involvement in their care plans.

It was not clear how feedback was used to develop the service. People’s documentation did not demonstrate they or their representatives had input in these. People confirmed they had not had sight of their care plans. The provider had a complaints policy, but records lacked detail about the actions taken to address these.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People had the opportunity to discuss their wishes for end-of-life care.

Staff we spoke with told us of the importance of keeping people comfortable at the end of life.

Documentation to support people at the end of their life was not always in place. Records relating to resuscitation were completed. Staff had received training in this area.