You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

This inspection was carried out over two days on the 30 January and 6 February 2018. Our visit on the 30 January was unannounced. At the last inspection on 24 and 27 November 2014, we rated the service as requires improvement overall. We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014, which related to medicines administration.

This inspection was to check satisfactory improvements had been made and to review the ratings. The provider sent us an action plan that detailed how they would make improvements to become compliant with the regulations. At this inspection we found improvements to the service. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed by their doctor.

Meadway Court is a care home standing in its own grounds. Accommodation is provided over two floors with a passenger lift as well as stairs between the floors. The home is situated in the village of Bramhall and is close to the local shops and other community facilities. Mead way Court is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 42 older people some of whom may also have a diagnosis of dementia. All bedrooms are single and 25 have en-suite facilities. The service offers nine recovery beds to assist people transferred from hospital to continue receiving support. At the time of this inspection the service supported 41 people. Meadway Court is one of eleven care homes owned by Borough Care Limited, a not-for profit registered charity.

At the time of this inspection the manager was in the process of applying for registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

We saw the food looked and smelt appetising and was attractively presented with good size portions. People told us they enjoyed the food.

From our observations of staff interactions and conversations with people living at the service, we saw staff had good relationships with the people they were caring for. The atmosphere was relaxed and people told us they felt comfortable. We observed staff being kind, patient and caring to people. We saw that people's privacy and dignity was respected.

We saw that meaningful activities were provided by the Activities and Lifestyle Facilitator (ALF) a full time activity co coordinator who based a lot of planning on people's personal preferences. The service utilised the supply of games, visiting entertainers and activities to help provide access to regular events throughout the week.

Staff understood the need to obtain verbal consent from people using the service before a care task was undertaken and staff were seen to obtain consent prior to providing care or support.

Procedures were in place to minimise the risk of harm to people using the service. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. This helped make sure people were protected by well trained and informed staff. People living at the service and staff spoken with said they thought safe care was provided.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to support them to participate in their daily activities within their home. Staffing levels had been recently revised by the registered provider to provide senior staff and deputies on duty each day. This initiative provided access for everyone to senior leadership and consistent management of the service over a seven day period. We recommended the registered provider reviews published guidance to help them to demonstrate how staffing levels are calculated to meet people’s needs.

Staff were recruited following a safe and robust process to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The building was clean and well maintained. We saw st

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff knew how to keep people safe.

Improvements had been made to the systems in place for the management and administration of medicines.

Recruitment procedures were robust to minimise the risk of unsuitable people being employed to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was effective

People’s needs were met by a suitably skilled and trained staff team who knew them well and were able to support them to have a good quality of life.

Staff accessed appropriate professional healthcare support and guidance when required.

Staff understood their role in maintaining the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make sure people’s best interests could be met.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

Is the service caring?

The service was caring.

We observed people being supported in a dignified manner and their privacy was respected.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed.

People living at Meadway Court told us the staff were kind and they felt well looked after.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People were encouraged to participate in developing and reviewing their support plans where possible. New care planning documentation was in the process of being

implemented.

People were offered meaningful activities suited to their individual interests and preferences. A dedicated activities facilitator helped people to continue with hobbies and encouraged people to choose what they would like to do each day.

Staff knew people well and reported any concerns or complaints raised with them to the manager.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 April 2018

The service was well led.

Healthcare professionals, staff and visitors we spoke with told us the management team were very approachable and supportive.

Systems in place in order to monitor the quality of the service were being fully utilised. Support plans were still being updated and developed. Some records needed signing and dating to show when they had been reviewed.

The service worked in partnership with local organisations to support the delivery of good quality dementia care.