Maples Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At the last inspection in 2023, we identified a breach of regulation. At this assessment we found there was still a breach of this regulation. We identified 1 breach of regulation, dignity and respect. People were supported to have some choice and control over their care. However, due to the lack of effective deployment of staff meant some people were kept waiting a long period of time for their meal or did not receive support to eat and drink when required to: However, due to the lack of effective deployment of staff, this meant that some people were kept waiting a long period of time for their meal or did not receive support to eat and drink when required. When staff did offer support, we saw them standing over people instead of sitting down, so they were at the same level and walking away if support was declined by people in the first instance.

We saw that people were not always stimulated with meaningful activities. Some staff were kind and spoke to people patiently and respectfully, other staff were task focused and failed to interact with people. In communal lounges we observed people sat in front of televisions with the sound off and subtitles on. Although staff were present in these lounges, they were either on their hand-held devices or just sitting in chairs. They failed to encourage conversations between people and between themselves and people.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Generally, staff were kind, compassionate and respectful to people, using their preferred name. However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about staff. One person said, “Most [staff] are [kind], it's a bit like society on the whole everyone is different.” On relative said, “Some [staff] will smile, say hello and come and have a chat but not everyone.” Another relative said, “[Staff] seem to be very kind and show dignity and respect.” A third relative said, “[Staff are] definitely kind and respectful.”

Overall, we observed people received care and support from staff who were kind and caring. However, some staff did not always show kindness and compassion or upheld people’s dignity when they were distressed.

At the last inspection, we identified a breach of regulation 10 (Dignity and respect) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this assessment we found there was still a breach of this regulation. During the assessment, we observed two people who were agitated, upset and distressed. One person in a wheelchair was distraught and crying while a member of staff was taking them to a lounge. The staff member failed to interact with them and provide comfort and reassurance. They also failed to uphold their dignity by taking them into a communal area in their distressed state. Another person who required supervision from staff, was observed trying to get into a lift unsupervised. They became extremely upset and agitated and tried to stop the lift doors from closing, which could have resulted in them physically injuring themself. Staff only attended to the person when they started to shout loudly and a member of our inspection team asked staff for support. Subsequently, staff did not try and reassure the person, which was a technique documented in their care plan, which should be used to calm the person when they were distressed.

We saw one person who did not always have their call bell answered in a timely manner. On the second day of the assessment, this person was observed calling for assistance via their call bell without a response from staff. When a staff member’s attention was drawn to the fact the call bell hadn’t been answered, they said, “That’s how [person] is.” and explained the person pressed the call bell throughout the day.

People were not always offered or engaged in meaningful activities either in a group or as individuals. One person said, “No [I’m not involved in activities], I went to the lounge once, but [staff] used a hoist and wheelchair. I didn't like that at all.”

We saw that two people enjoyed reading newspapers. One of these people said, “The first thing I will do is get a newspaper [when taken out by relatives]. I don't get one delivered here.” Another person told us, “I like thinking. I was a teacher and trained teachers…. I like the competitions.” However, care records for these people did not record that these was their activities of choice and had not explored and made attempts to make this activity available to them.

Some staff told us that there was a need for more activities, especially for those people who lived with dementia. Staff also told us that they did not have time to deliver activities or carry out 1:1 conversations with people during the day, during evenings and weekends or when there were no activities coordinators on site as they were too busy.

Apart from the activity coordinators, staff we spoke with were not always able to tell us about people’s individual interests. Or how they supported people to identify their interests and preferences and how they then helped them to follow these.

Although external entertainers came into the home, people did not have daily opportunities to take part in stimulating activities that reflected their individual interests. Outside of the limited daily advertised activities, the rest of people’s days were somewhat empty. One person said, “I don't like singing or other things. I do like going out, [my relative] comes and takes me out.” People were not offered a choice to leave the service to access the local community.

We saw people were not consistently offered the opportunity to spend their time in a meaningful way or staff engaging them in meaningful conversations. We saw and staff told us there were not enough activities, including for those who were cared for or chose to stay in their rooms. We did not observe any meaningful 1:1 activity taking place with people who were cared for in their rooms or who chose not to participate in group activities. We saw there was little or no interaction between staff and people who were seated in lounges or nursed in bed. Systems and processes to support people to follow interests and to take part in activities that are socially and culturally relevant to them were not consistently in place. Although we saw some activities taking place in parts of the home, the majority of the time people were either asleep or sat in front of televisions that were muted with subtitles.

People did not always receive care and treatment which met their needs or reflected their preferences. Care records did not reflect how people preferred to spend their time. People’s individual likes and dislikes and how to meet them had not always documented in people’s care records and there was no clear guidance for staff around this.

People had individual keyworkers, who were urged to allocate time in their working day - at least once a week to spend time with people individually, to provide emotional and social support as well as finding out about their likes and dislikes. This conversation was to be documented, however, records reviewed showed that, staff did not seem to give much time to this activity and some people’s likes and dislikes were not always detailed in their care plans.

Some people had sensory impairments, however, there was no sensory area. There were some sensory items in a box in the lounge on the first floor, however, these were not taken out and utilised. Staff did not offer people in this lounge anything occupy or entertain them. There were no fiddle boards on the walls, and memorabilia was limited to lounge areas. Besides the sing-a- long we observed, there was no evidence of music being used to stimulate people.

We saw that religious services were held once a month for people to participate in if they chose to. We saw that people’s bedrooms were personalised to their taste with items that were important to them.

We received mixed feedback about people feeling rushed. One person said, “[Staff] do rush you a little bit but not much.” A relative said, “My [family member] does say that they sometimes ask for something, but [staff] leave and they don't get it.” Another person said, “No [staff] don't rush me, but take their time”. Another relative said, “[Staff] seem to [give my family member time].”

Staff told us, that they encouraged people to make their own choices in relation to what they liked to wear or eat where they could. They also said that they encouraged people to be independent and do what they could for themselves, such as washing their face.

We did not see staff encouraging people to eat independently if they were able to or encourage people to partake in conversations. We did not see in anyone’s care plan that they had been offered the choice of having a bath, the regional manager told us that was because people chose to have a wash or shower. However, people and relatives we spoke with did not seem to know that there was an option to have a bath and people’s care records did not document that they had been asked what their preference was.

At the last inspection in July 2023, we saw care records did not always detail what people could manage to do themselves to maintain their independence or give staff specific guidance on how to encourage people to be independent where they could. We found that this was still the same at this assessment and improvement was still needed. This meant their independence was not promoted or maintained.

Some staff lacked the skills and techniques or did not respond effectively to people when they were distressed, anxious, upset, agitated or used their call bell for support.

The registered manager told us that they carried out call bell audits on a monthly basis. When we reviewed audits for June and July 2024, however, we saw that these audits had not been signed by the registered manager. Although the audits identified shortfalls, they recorded that these shortfalls had been investigated, there were no records evidencing this.

Some staff we spoke with were not always able to tell us about distraction techniques recorded in people’s care plans to use when people appeared agitated or distressed.

Call bells were not always answered in a timely manner. Call bell records showed that some response times were over 10 minutes and sometimes much longer.



Timely call bell answering was a concern, especially as performance had declined over the last 3 months and the same themes were recurring. In June 2024, 272 calls were over 10 minutes. In May 2024, 149 calls were over 10 minutes. In April, 149 over 10 minutes. Staff were not meeting the target of 90% call bells being answered in under 5 minutes as per the providers policy. The regional manager explained that they felt that “Most of these” were because staff did not reset the answered calls at the wall or because staff were not paying attention to the panel. However, there were no records to show that this was the case.

We saw call bell audits did not identify themes such as why people were making numerous calls. For example, one person called for assistance 51 times in July 2024, but the reasons or triggers for the call had not been analysed or documented.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.