This inspection took place on 15 February 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2014 we found that the service was meeting the required standards in quality and safety.

Maple Lodge provides support and care for up to 40 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection 39 people used the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 who used the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse as not all staff were aware of the different types of abuse and how to deal with it.

People's individual levels of risks were assessed and reviewed but not always monitored to ensure people received care consistently.

There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet and support people with their individual needs. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment procedures and were supported with their training and development needs.

People's medicines were managed safely; staff were well trained and supported people with their medication in a safe, compassionate way.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions about their care. People were offered choices and options regarding their daily lives and staff supported people with their choices.

People were supported to access external healthcare professionals and other agencies in order to ensure their healthcare needs were fully met. People were supported with their nutritional requirements and preferences.

People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate. People and their representatives were involved in the planning and review of their care.

People knew how to complain and who they needed to complain to and the provider had a complaints policy available.

People told us the registered manager and the staff team were approachable friendly and supportive. Staff told us they worked well as a team.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

This inspection took place on the 29 October 2014 and was unannounced.

Maple Lodge (Stafford) provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 people some of whom may be living with a physical disability or dementia. At the time of this inspection 31 people lived at the home.

The home had a registered manager 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.

People who lived at Maple Lodge and their relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received.

The provider kept people safe. Staff were aware of how to keep people safe and where to report and refer any concerns they may have. Risk assessments were completed when risks to people had been identified. They included the actions needed to reduce risks.

Recruitment processes were in place which ensured that prospective staff were fit to work.

Although staffing numbers were adequate and people’s needs were met, there were concerns over the skill mix of staff as some staff were new to the home and did not have the necessary skills and experience that was needed to support people.

Staff managed people’s medicines safely; they received training in the administration of medication. Systems were in place to reduce the risk of medication errors.

The provider recognised the requirement to work within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS). Referrals were in the process of being made for people who may have been restricted of their liberty, however not all staff had received training in these areas.

People had a healthy choice of food. When people required more support to meet their nutritional needs, plans were put in place to monitor and ensure that people received adequate food and fluids,

Healthcare professionals were contacted when people’s needs changed or they became unwell. People received health and social care support when they needed it.

Staff were aware of people’s individual care plans and risk assessments. Information was recorded in the care plans to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff supported people to enjoy their hobbies and interests either on an individual basis or within a group activity.

People knew how to complain if they were not happy with the service they received.

Staff received on-going training which was relevant to their role. They told us the training they needed was available, useful and relevant.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people could comment on the home and make suggestions for improvement.

Checks were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

We inspected Maple Lodge as part of our scheduled inspections to check on the care and welfare of people who used this service. The visit was unannounced, this meant that the registered provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

At the time of our inspection 35 people lived at the home. We spoke with staff, visitors and people who used the service that were able to tell us about their experiences. Visitors told us they were generally satisfied with the service.

Some people were unable to speak with us either because of frailty or personal preference. We spent time in each of the two units to observe the activity and interactions between staff and people. We saw that staff were available to help and support people when assistance was needed.

We spoke with staff about the care and support they provided. They gave a detailed account of the specific individual needs of people. We looked at the care records for five people who used the service and found that the recorded information did not accurately correspond with what staff had told us. We spoke with the management about this and by the end of the inspection action had been taken.

We looked to see if people's medication was being managed properly. We found the service had systems in place to ensure medication was handled safely and securely.

The service had a complaints procedure which detailed how to deal with any comments and complaints made by people who used the service or their relatives.

At the inspection in November 2012 we found staffing levels were variable in the units. There were occasions when staff were not in areas where people using the service were. This meant that on occasions people were left without adequate supervision and potentially in a vulnerable situation. We issued a compliance action to ensure improvements would be made. We received information from the provider which informed us of the actions taken to achieve compliance with the regulations.

On this occasion we visited both units within the service. Staff on those units told us that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people. We observed people who used the service accessed all areas within the units. We saw staff in attendance, readily available to offer help and support when it was needed. People who used the service were offered support with their midday meal in a considerate and timely way.

We saw staff supported people in a respectful and dignified way. Some people told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided. Some people were unable to tell us how they were feeling but we saw people seemingly at ease and comfortable.

We spoke with staff about the care and support they provided to people each day, they offered an explanation of people's individual needs. We looked at a selection of care records to check the care being given to people. These records corresponded with the information staff had given us.

Staff told us their understanding of safeguarding vulnerable people and confirmed they had received training in this. People who used the service told us they did not have any concerns but if they did they would speak with either the manager, senior staff or their family.

Staffing levels were variable in the units, there were occasions when staff were not in areas where people using the service were. This meant that on occasions people were left without adequate supervision and potentially in a vulnerable situation. People we spoke with told us that additional staff on duty would be beneficial.

We saw the service had an effective system for monitoring the quality of the service.