At the last inspection in September 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection, the service continued to be Good.

The Maples is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Maples provides care and accommodation for up to seven people with a diagnosis of a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There were seven people living in the home in the time of our visit.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service is required to have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our visit he registered manager had been in post for over 20 years.

People felt safe living at The Maples and there were enough staff to respond to people's needs in a timely way. Procedures were in place to protect people from harm and staff knew how to manage the risks associated with people's care.

Staff turnover was low and the provider's recruitment procedures minimised, as far as possible, the risks to people’s safety. Staff were confident the training they received gave them the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs effectively.

The majority of staff told us they felt supported by the management team. Staff had opportunities to contribute their ideas to share suggestions and good practice.

The home was clean and well maintained. Regular checks of the building and equipment took place to make sure they were safe to use.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff respected the decisions people made.

Staff were friendly and caring and they enjoyed spending their time with the people who lived in the home. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and supported people to make and communicate their choices.

People enjoyed the food and nutritionally balanced meals were available.

People's medicines were stored and administered safely. People received the care and treatment they required from health professionals.

People chose to take part in a variety of social activities which they enjoyed.

People were supported to be independent and staff respected people's right to privacy.

People were happy with how the home was run and they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They told us they felt listened to and they had opportunities to feedback on their service they received.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable doing so. Effective systems to monitor and the review the quality of the home were in place.

This inspection took place on the 15 September 2015 and was unannounced.

The Maples Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to seven people with a diagnosis of a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our visit there were six people living in the home.

There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection, who was also the provider. 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.

The home had a happy and relaxed atmosphere and staff told us how much they enjoyed supporting people who lived at the home. People were treated with kindness and compassion and there was a lot of positive engagement with people. Staff constantly checked to see if people needed anything and there was clear evidence of caring relationships between staff and the people they supported.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs both inside the home and outside in the wider community. Staff had a good and in-depth understanding of people’s needs and abilities and the level of support they required to keep them safe. Staff understood their responsibility to report any concerns they had about people’s wellbeing and were observant for non-verbal signs that a person was unhappy.

People received their medication as prescribed and medicines were stored safely and securely.

Staff received training and support to ensure they could safely and effectively meet the individual needs of the people living in the home. Staff told us the training they received gave them the skills to support people who could sometimes display behaviours that could cause concern to them and others.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The provider had made applications to the local authority in accordance with the DoLS and was waiting for formal approval for three people.

Staff understood people’s communication needs and gave visual prompts so people could make their own choices about their everyday activities. People were given opportunities to engage in activities that interested them inside and outside the home that helped promote their independence.

People were involved in planning their care and support needs. People were involved in regular reviews to ensure any changes in the support they required were identified.

The provider encouraged staff to undertake further qualifications to support their own personal development and progress their careers. Staff told us they felt confident to approach the provider if they had concerns about anything. The provider had systems to monitor the quality of service and identify where improvements were required.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. During the inspection we met the six people who were using the service and spoke with three care staff, the manager and the deputy manager. We also spoke with three relatives of people who used the service and we spoke with two external social care professionals.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People who use the service were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements.

CQC monitors the operations of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act. The provider had appropriately submitted DoLS applications and were awaiting a response those applications. We saw that staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and had received recent training in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act.

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people living at the home and a management team was available on call in case of emergencies. Relatives we spoke with were all happy with the care being delivered. One relative told us: “The staff and care are excellent … really happy there”.

Staff personnel files contained information required by the Health and Social Care Act. This meant the staff employed were suitable and had the skills and experience to support people living in the home.

Is the service effective?

Relatives of people using the service told us they were happy with the care and support provided. People told us they were happy with the support they received; one person told us: “Like it here, nothing could be improved, they know me very well”. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by staff who were kind and caring towards them. We saw that staff were patient and encouraged and supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed. We observed that people were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed.

Relatives and social care professionals told us that the staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and were caring towards people. One social care professional told us: “X receives very good care”. Another social care professional told us “X very happy and settled, they support his needs”.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Each person was allocated a key worker. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests and showed the care and support that had been provided. People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with relatives.

Is the service well led?

Staff told us that they were able to talk to the senior staff when they needed to. We saw evidence of staff receiving regular supervision, training and support and attending monthly staff meetings. We saw that the views of people who used the service was regularly sought and acted on.

Relatives we spoke with told us that they had regular contact with the home and said that they could speak to the manager or staff at any time. They told us that they were kept well informed about any issues that affected their relatives.

We saw that there were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided. These included a number of audits including health and safety, medicines, cleaning and infection control. We saw that the service had robust contingency, emergency planning in place to ensure that people using the service always had their needs met.

When we visited The Maples Residential Care Home there were six people living there. During our visit we spent time chatting to people and observing the care and support they received. We spoke with two staff members and the manager. We also spoke with two relatives who were visiting the home at the time of our visit.

People living at the home required varying levels of support. We saw that where people were able, they were encouraged to maintain as much independence as possible. One person told us, "They encourage me and I am independent."

Care plans were tailored to people's individual needs and showed individual risks and how they were to be managed. Some people's identified social and activity needs were not being met which did not maintain their welfare or promote their wellbeing.

We saw people were receiving their medicines when they needed them and in a safe way. The service was regularly checking that medicines were being administered correctly and recording was accurate.

When we arrived at the home there was only one member of staff on duty. We identified there were not always enough staff to meet people's individual needs at all times.

There was a complaints procedure in the home. The service had not received any complaints in 2013.

We visited the home on 31 January 2013. During our visit, we spoke with the manager and two support workers. We observed interactions and spoke with two people who lived at the home. We also spoke by phone with two relatives of people who lived at the home.

People told us, “We are very, very pleased with their service” and “We are so grateful for them.” Staff said, “They are very good to work for. There is a lovely family atmosphere here.”

Staff told us that there is excellent staff cover and they plan a wide range of activities for people. We saw that these had recently included a day trip to Blackpool to see the illuminations and some countryside walks.

People who lived at the home interacted positively with staff and appeared very comfortable and relaxed. They were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.

People told us that staff were, “Wonderful”.