You are here

Archived: Ambito Care Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 July 2016

We inspected Meade Close on 14 June 2016. Our last inspection took place January 2014. At that time we found the service met the standards we inspected against.

Meade Close is registered to provide care and support for eight people with physical and learning disabilities. There is a parking area to the front of the building and an enclosed garden to the rear. The accommodation comprises of two bungalows which are single storey and are light and spacious. All of the bedrooms are single and each has a sink. There is a communal kitchen and dining area, a lounge area and a shared bathroom in both bungalows.

The registered manager had left the service in January 2016 and there was a new manager in post who had applied for registration with the Commission. 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.

Relatives told us that the staff team was very stable, which they said they felt was very important for the people who lived at the home as well as for them.

We found there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and that training opportunities were good. Relatives we spoke with told us they liked the staff and had confidence in them.

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Due to our lack of ability to interpret the communication styles of some of the people who lived at the service we carried out a number of observations, spoke to relatives and staff and checked information held about people to ascertain if they were happy. Relatives told us that they felt their family members were safe and well cared for. We saw that staff understood how to keep people safe, knew people well and we saw people were relaxed and happy in their environment.

Staff at the home knew what the people who lived there liked and disliked. We saw that there was a relaxed atmosphere at meal times and people were offered choices about what they wanted to eat.

Activities were planned for each of the people who lived at Meade Close based upon their personal preferences. Days out, trips to the shops and other activities were recorded in a diary. People were given options about where to spend their time, for example in the lounge, in their bedroom or in the kitchen/dining area. There was also a large garden which was accessible to the people who lived at the home.

We saw that there were detailed risk assessments and care plans in place for each of the people that lived at the home. These incorporated personal preferences, people’s life history and important information on how each person liked to communicate.

Relatives told us they were always made to feel welcome and could visit whenever they liked. They also said that if they had any concerns or complaints they would feel able to raise them with the manager.

We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Staff supported the people using the service to input into the running of the home and relatives could feed back their views at house meetings and during care planning meetings.

Inspection areas



Updated 9 July 2016

The service was safe.

We saw people were relaxed in the company of staff and responded to them in a positive way.

Staff understood the safeguarding procedures and how they should report any suspicions of abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medication at the right times.



Updated 9 July 2016

The service was effective.

We saw from the records staff had a programme of training and were trained to care for and support people who used the service.

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Records showed people had regular access to health care professionals, such as GPs, opticians, district nurses and specialist nurses.



Updated 9 July 2016

The service was caring.

Relatives told us staff were kind and caring to the people that lived in the home, treated them with dignity and respected their choices. This was confirmed by our observations, which showed staff displayed warmth and friendliness towards people.

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and based upon people’s life histories and personal preferences. Staff supported people to be involved in their own care planning.

Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome and could visit at any time.



Updated 9 July 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s health, care and support needs were assessed and individual choices and preferences were discussed with people who used the service and their relatives. We saw people’s care plans were reviewed regularly.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities based upon their personal preferences.

Complaints about the service had been dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner. Complaints were taken seriously and used to continue to drive forward improvements in the service.



Updated 9 July 2016

The service was well-led.

People lived in a home where the manager was committed to listening to people's views and planning on-going improvements.

Staff felt well supported which enabled them to provide a good standard of care.

The home had a robust quality monitoring system that promoted change and improvement of the service.