Maypole Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to identify and embed good practice. The provider had an open-door policy which enabled visiting at any time unannounced and people who were considering moving in could view the home at any time which mitigated the risks associated with closed cultures. Staff overwhelmingly told us they were encouraged to raise concerns, some staff referred to the providers Speak-UP Policy. They told us concerns were well received and managed appropriately. They told us there was a culture of safety with a no blame focus.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. A professional involved with the service told us about a person who had a smooth transition from hospital to the service. Autistic people and people with learning disabilities were supported by the service and other professionals where indicated. Where required people had positive behaviour support plans in place to ensure they were supported consistently.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Relatives told us people were safe living at the service. One relative told us, “Yes, absolutely [safe]. [Person’s name] is on blood thinners and does get knocks and bruises, they are always communicating to me about plans in place and how they can protect them.” Restrictions such as locked doors and access to the kitchen were proportionate, necessary and were considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were supported and empowered to take risks. For example, the provider told us about a person who wanted to go swimming. They completed a risk assessment, sought an accessible swimming pool, purchased the appropriate slings for use with the hoist available at the swimming pool. The person enjoyed swimming, and the provider has plans to roll this out to other people who may be interested.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. One person struggled with a manual wheelchair. The provider made a referral for an electric wheelchair which has improved this person’s quality of life. Work was ongoing to ensure people’s rooms were fully personalised. People’s doors all looked the same with their name in small print on the door. The manager told us they were looking into personalising doors with people. They intend to source memory boxes to help people identify their rooms more easily. People were consulted about the colour of their room when they moved onto the service and the provider made reasonable adjustments to meet all people’s individual needs.

Some staff recruitment records were not complete such as the reason staff left all previous roles within health and social care. During the inspection the manager escalated this shortfall to their Human Resources partners who ensured the provider’s recruitment policy included all pre-employment record requirements going forward. The manager assessed staffing levels using dependency tools and the rota showed staff were provided in line with their calculations. However, most people felt the service could benefit from additional staff as call bells were not always answered in a timely way. The manager was aware of this issue and conducted daily call bell audits and addressed this with staff where required. Call bell audits demonstrated improvements were being made in this area. Staff received competency assessments for administering medicines, manual handling, infection prevention and control and oral hygiene. Staff’s skills and experience were matched to the needs of each staff member to enable staff to work towards and achieve their aspirations and potential. For example, when the provider took a person swimming, they matched the person with 2 staff members who were qualified lifeguards. However, not all staff had received supervision in line with the provider’s policy. The manager was aware of this, and we could see supervisions had started to take place. The manager was training some of the senior staff how to complete effective supervision and told us this would support them to ensure all staff received regular meaningful supervision going forward. Time was needed for these newly introduced systems to become embedded in practice.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. We found the service was clean and what most relatives told us supported this. One relative told us, “It’s always a clean, sweet-smelling home, always fresh.” Staff had access to appropriate PPE which was used and disposed of in a safe way. Cleaning schedules were in place to support staff to keep the service clean.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. However, when we counted the medicines, they did not always match what the provider had listed on their stock control sheets. The manager was responsive and has put further systems in place to mitigate the risk of this occurring again in the future. There was no evidence of people being harmed. The manager told us they were followed the principles of Stopping Overmedication of People with a learning disability, autism or both. (STOMP)