Mapleford Nursing 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People were provided with choice and people’s communication needs were taken into consideration. People and their relatives felt listened to and meetings were organised for them to attend should they wish. Care plans were person-centred and included people’s religious and cultural preferences. People’s end of life care and treatment had been considered.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Concerns were found in relation to people’s personal care needs not being met as not everyone had a toothbrush and toothpaste in their bedroom and people were found to have unclean nails. Staff told us that at times care was rushed which meant we could not be assured of a person-centred approach. There were numerous boards up around the service including activity boards which included the activity schedule and pictures of people enjoying various events. Bedrooms had people’s pictures on which made them identifiable to the person as most people living here had a diagnosis of dementia. Bedrooms were personalised and had pictures of people’s preferences to prompt conversation and ensure all staff knew how to care for the person. We witnessed staff providing people with a choice and staff told us of the importance of ensuring people were cared for in a person-centred way. There were no restrictions on visits and relatives told us they could visit when they wished to. One relative said, “There are no restrictions as to when we can visit. We always get offered a cup of tea when we are there. There’re drinks and biscuits available throughout the day.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We saw evidence referrals were being made to some healthcare professionals and where there had been an outcome such as a dietician plan, this was incorporated into the person’s care plan. The registered manager told us they ensured continuity of care by only using agency staff when necessary and by partnering them up with permanent staff members. All agency staff had access to people’s care records whilst working at the service to ensure they had the knowledge to safely and effectively care for people. The registered manager worked closely with a range of professionals to ensure people received the best possible outcomes. Relatives told us staff would refer any concerns about people to the appropriate agencies and had trust this would be acted on in a timely manner. Relatives told us there is not a high staff turnover and commented that they see the same staff faces.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The Accessible Information Standard was being followed and the service user guide and statement of purpose was available in an easy read format to make this accessible for all. The registered manager told us people’s communication needs were assessed which formulated the person’s care plan, detailing how best to support someone with their communication needs. Picture cards were also available for people who struggled to communicate. Staff told us they had a good understanding of people’s communication needs. One staff member said, “I know people well, for people that can’t communicate we look for other signs like facial expressions.” Relatives praised the staff and the registered manager for communicating well with them and keeping them informed of any updates or concerns. One relative said, “The service is reliable and always supportive no matter what you ask they always make time to explain things and follow up anything that you’re bothered about.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. A record of complaints was logged and there was evidence of what action had been taken following a concern, such as investigation notes and lessons learnt logs. Surveys were given to both people and their relatives to ensure people’s voices were heard. We saw evidence of relative meetings and feedback obtained from this. Resident meetings took place but as people could not always engage in a group setting, the activity co-ordinator went to people individually to ensure people felt included and involved people in a way to suit their needs. Staff knew what action to take should someone have a concern. Relatives told us they knew how to complain or raise a concern should they need to and felt listened to. Relatives also spoke of relative meetings but not everyone attended and preferred to address issues directly with the registered manager.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans held a record of people’s reasonable adjustments to ensure the service was accessible for all. Contingency plans were in place as well as an on-call system. The registered manager told us there was a range of managers available to contact out of hours, should staff require any support. Partners felt people lived in safe environment, accessible for their needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. We saw evidence people’s care records had been reviewed alongside the person, relative and senior managers. Care plans were person-centred and held a record of people’s religious and cultural preferences. Staff had undertaken training in equality and diversity and felt they knew people’s needs well. People and their relatives felt listened to.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. End of life care plans were in place should the person want this, and advanced wishes were documented. People’s wishes had been taken into consideration when having sensitive conversations and staff had training in this area. DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) forms were in place for those who wanted them and there was a record of this in people’s care plans.