You are here

Archived: Generals Meadow Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 9 November 2016.

Generals Meadow can provide accommodation and personal care for 19 older people. There were 17 people living in the service at the time of our inspection.

The service was run by Mr and Mrs Peacock. They made up a partnership and together they were the registered provider. One of the partners was also the registered manager. 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. In this report when we speak both about the partners and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’

Staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse. People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.

Although new staff had not fully received all of the training recommended by a nationally recognised model, established staff had received refresher training. Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to care for people in the right way. People had been assisted to eat and drink enough and had been supported to receive all of the healthcare assistance they needed.

The registered persons had ensured that people's rights were respected by helping them to make decisions for themselves. The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered persons had taken the necessary steps to ensure that people only received lawful care that respected their rights.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, promoted their dignity and respected confidential information.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the assistance they needed. This included people who lived with dementia and who could become distressed. People had been helped to pursue their hobbies and interests and there was a system for quickly and fairly resolving complaints.

Although some quality checks were not fully recorded other evidence showed that the registered persons had regularly checked to make sure that people were reliably receiving all of the care they needed. The service was run in an open and inclusive way, good team work was promoted and staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns. People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse including financial mistreatment.

People had been helped to avoid the risk of accidents and medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was effective.

Although new staff had not received all of the recommended training, established staff had been given refresher training. Staff knew how to care for people in the right way.

People had been assisted to eat and drink enough and they enjoyed their meals.

People had been assisted to receive all the healthcare attention they needed.

People were helped to make decisions for themselves. When this was not possible legal safeguards were followed to ensure that decisions were made in people�s best interests so that their legal rights were respected.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring, kind and compassionate.

People�s right to privacy was respected and staff promoted people�s dignity.

Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive.

Staff had provided people with all the care they needed including people who could become distressed.

People were helped to pursue their hobbies and interests.

There was a system to quickly and fairly resolve complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 December 2016

The service was well led.

Although some quality checks were not fully recorded the registered persons had regularly checked to make sure that people were reliably receiving all of the care they needed.

People and their relatives had been asked for their opinions of the service so that their views could be taken into account.

There was good team work and staff had been encouraged to speak out if they had any concerns.

People had benefited from staff acting upon good practice guidance.