The Mead

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity. Many staff had worked at the home for many years and had built up very positive relationships with people. Staff interactions with people were positive. People told us, “They are all very nice to me and I can see how they look after others, which is also good,” and “Staff are friendly and supportive.” People were addressed by their preferred names, and staff showed genuine interest in their needs and preferences. If people requested care from female staff, this was accommodated. Staff provided examples of how they supported people’s dignity, commenting, “We close the curtains, close the doors.”

The provider delivered personalised care that reflected each person’s individual needs, preferences, and protected characteristics. Staff recognised people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and cultural backgrounds. People’s individuality was respected, and staff supported them to personalise their bedrooms according to their tastes. Cultural and religious needs were met, and all significant cultural events were celebrated.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights or have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. Each unit featured a central meeting area where people preferred to sit; however, there were not enough chairs available. When all seats were occupied, people had to use the lounge. Most people did not find the lounge comfortable and would sometimes remain in their wheelchairs until a chair became available. Staff recognised this as a concern, but no measures had been implemented to make the lounge more appealing or to explore potential solutions.

On the day of the site visit, there was no activities worker on site as they were on leave. Relatives and staff told us activities had “massively improved recently”; however, we could see no evidence of this. From reviewing the activities timetable, the activity scheduled for Monday was the hairdresser. People and relatives told us there were activities but at times they would welcome more, particularly at the weekends.

We could see there were boxes where activity items were stored; some were broken or had pieces missing. A person requested to do some colouring, and staff went and found that the colouring pencils were old and broken. They could not locate a sharpener, so the task remained unfinished.

One person who enjoyed crafting had their own area in a lounge where this could be enjoyed.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

On the day of the assessment, we observed that, at times, people had to wait for support. We fed this back to the management team during feedback, and they agreed that a review of how staff were deployed was required.

When people changed their minds, for instance at mealtimes or when choosing where they wanted to spend their time, staff were responsive to this. They were patient and helped people communicate their needs. People were supported to remain independent. Staff told us, “We support people to remain independent by encouraging them to do as much as they are able to do for themselves. We try to enable them to live and do as much as they can,” and, “to be able to support people to put on their clothes themselves and put their own butter on their toast.”

External professionals raised no concerns about the responsiveness of staff or leaders in terms of their oversight of people’s needs and how they responded to them.

The provider supported staff wellbeing and enablement. Staff told us they felt supported by each other and the management team. Staff explained they were fairly treated and provided with opportunities to develop their careers if they wished. Staff spoke positively about their jobs and told us they were happy in their work. One staff member told us, “The best things are the residents, the staff, the families; they’re a nice team, everybody’s lovely and supportive.” This meant staff wellbeing was supported appropriately so that they could continue to provide good care for people.