Meadowcroft Health Care Limited

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

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, underpinned by openness and honesty. The registered manager actively listened to concerns about safety and ensured safety events were appropriately investigated and reported. Lessons were learned and used to continually identify and embed good practice. Systems and processes were in place that involved staff and managers at all levels who reviewed incidents, with a clear focus on reducing or mitigating the risk of similar incidents occurring again. Effective analysis systems were in place to review risks, concerns, incidents and complaints, to ensure potential risks were not overlooked or ignored. The management team demonstrated a clear commitment to analyse all incidents as an opportunity to put things right, learn and improve outcomes for the people they supported. This meant there was an effective learning culture.

The provider 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.

The management team and staff worked collaboratively with external health professionals, and professional advice was clearly recorded within people’s care plans to ensure people received safe and consistent care. For example, where a person had developed skin pressure damage, the clinical lead sought timely support from the tissue viability nurse, and a detailed care plan was implemented. If people required admission to hospital, an ‘emergency pack’ was in place containing all essential information to support a smooth and safe transition between services. This meant people experienced continuity of care and reduced risk during transitions between settings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. All staff we spoke with at all levels had a strong understanding of safeguarding and how to report any incidents. One staff member told us, “I can recognise abuse by knowing service users changes in behaviours, bruises marks etc; I would report any concerns to nurse in charge and management. My training in safeguarding was done last month; this is done on a yearly basis.” All safeguarding incidents were recorded and reported to the local authority safeguarding team if required. People told us they felt safe. One person said. “I’m really safe here. The staff are great too.” This meant people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm, abuse and were supported to live safely.

Some people at the service were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLs), this is where the person cannot make decisions about their care and treatment. This ensures restrictive care arrangements are legally authorised in the person’s best interest. This meant people had decisions made lawfully in their best interest.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, some people required ongoing monitoring and support with skin pressure area care. Detailed person-centred risk assessments were in place, and people were actively involved in these assessments. People were supported to make informed decisions about how risks were managed, which ensured their choices and preferences were respected while maintaining their safety. This meant staff worked in partnership with people to implement person-centred risk management plans that clearly reflected their wishes and individual needs.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Health and safety checks were completed regularly, and there were effective processes in place to address and resolve any identified risks or concerns. For example, a legionella risk assessment had been completed by an external specialist, and they identified actions. These actions had been addressed in a timely manner. We observed that appropriate equipment was in place, well maintained and stored securely. This meant people were supported in a safe environment and checks were in place to ensure equipment was safe to use.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We observed there was enough staff to keep people safe. Staff told us there was enough staff and they had completed training. One staff member told us, “Yes, there is usually enough staff to ensure I can complete my role effectively. I feel well trained because I had a four-day induction. Two days were at headquarters in Sheffield, including training such as moving and handling, choking, first aid level 2, equality and diversity, infection prevention and control, and other key aspects of care, including DoLS, Mental Capacity Act, and case studies. The other two days I attended Meadowcroft for shadow shifts and observed how the home worked.” Training records showed staff had completed a range of training. This meant people were supported by staff who were trained to meet their needs safely.

Staff had been recruited safely, with all appropriate pre-employment checks completed to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff were provided with regular one-to-one supervision, which gave them the opportunity to discuss their performance, development needs, and any concerns about people’s care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The provider had a policy in place to guide them on what staff should do if there was an infection outbreak within the home and staff completed infection, prevention and control training. This meant staff had the knowledge and guidance on how to deal with outbreaks safely. People told us the home was clean and they were able to maintain good personal hygiene. One person told us, “I can have a shower as often as I want as can manage it myself. It’s clean enough here and they look after my clothes well.” This meant people were protected from the risk of infection and cared for in a clean, safe environment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes were being made to their medicines. Staff responsible for administering medicines were trained and competent, and medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperatures. Records were accurately maintained, and audits were carried out regularly to identify and address any discrepancies or errors. This meant people received their medicines safely.