You are here

Long Meadow Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

About the service

Long Meadow Care Home accommodates up to 35 people over the age of 18, including people living with dementia. On the first day of inspection we were informed that 26 people used the service.

People’s experience of using this service

Improvements had been made to the standards of hygiene, staffing levels, medicine management, staff recruitment and the assessment and monitoring of risk to people. Further work was required to ensure the new processes were embedded in practice.

The recruitment of a new manager meant there had been some improvement around leadership, oversight and management within the service. The quality assurance and monitoring processes within the service were being completed and the service was moving forward. The assessment, monitoring and mitigation of risk towards people who used the service had improved. This meant risks to people's health and safety was reduced, although additional work was needed to ensure the new practices were sustained.

People said they felt safe in the service. All areas were clean, tidy and there was sufficient cleaning taking place to keep people safe from the risk of infection. There remained some minor issues around the frequency of bathing for some people.

The provider followed robust recruitment checks, and sufficient staff were employed to ensure people's needs were met. People's said they received their medicines on time and when needed. However, recording of the application of topical medicines such as creams and lotions was not consistent. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

The uptake and completion of staff training had improved, and staff had started to receive regular support and supervision.

Communication had improved but further work was needed to ensure this was consistent and effective. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People ate nutritious, well cooked food, but felt their options around choice of meals and variety within the menu was limited. The monitoring of people’s nutritional intake and weight loss had improved, and people were now being weighed on a regular basis. Their health needs were identified and staff worked with other professionals, to ensure these needs were met.

Care plans and risk assessments had all been reviewed and updated, but further development was needed to ensure these covered specific medical conditions such as dementia and diabetes. Short term care plans for issues such as antibiotic treatment had been introduced, but these were not consistently completed.

Staff knew about people’s individual care needs and people said they were happy with the support they received. Activities were taking place in the service, but these did not meet everyone’s needs. People who remained in their bedrooms received little or no social stimulation through one-to-one interventions. The provider had recognised that further work was needed to make activities more ‘dementia friendly’ and accessible.

People felt able to raise complaints with the service and the manager did look into these. However, there was no evidence that the provider had provided information for people, available in formats they could understand, in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

There was a continued breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Exiting special measures – improvements

This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that impro

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.