Meadow Park

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

​Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. ​

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Any incidents about people's safety were discussed with staff in a timely way, with action taken to mitigate further risks. A staff member told us, “There is a good culture of learning. Outcomes from falls and incident analysis is shared at the clinical governance meetings attended by the registered manager and deputy manager and team leaders. This occurs monthly, team leaders will feed back to care staff.”

Staff at the service worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. Staff made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Detailed information was collected before people started to use the service, and ‘passports’ were available with information to take when attending hospital or other health appointments.

Staff at the service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People and relatives told us they felt safe, they would speak with staff if they were worried, and they always felt listened to. A person commented, “I am comfortable and safe.” Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were sought when needed and any conditions imposed by them were followed.

Staff always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks were assessed to ensure people were safe and staff took action to mitigate any identified risks. Risks were identified and transferred to care plans, including for the management of distress and agitation, to mitigate risks and help to keep people safe. Staff supported people safely and appropriate equipment was available if people needed assistance. A person told us, “The staff are lovely. They make sure I use the walking stick and walker and a wheelchair outside.”

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Equipment was regularly serviced to maintain safety. A relative commented, “[Name] has had no falls in here, we were worried, but we feel [Name] is safe here. We were not reassured when [Name] was at home.”

The provider did not always make sure there were enough staff to support people. Staff were skilled and experienced. They received effective support, supervision and development. Most people thought there were sufficient staff. A person told us, “You just need to ask, if staff are busy, they are not long.” However, some people and relatives commented that when staff were busy on a unit on the ground floor, they had to wait for assistance as there were only 2 members of staff, including the senior staff member to support them. This meant when the senior staff member was carrying out other duties, they were unable to be involved in direct care giving. People and relatives’ comments included, “Waiting times can be challenging but staff acknowledge this and come back”, “They seem to have enough staff, but sometimes they are short of staff”, “If I want a bath, staff are always busy”, “Sometimes there are not enough staff, especially in the mornings when you have to wait” and “Staff sometimes listen, but sometimes they are too busy.” Staff members confirmed they received opportunities for training and development. A staff member commented, “There is an in-house trainer for Barchester, they are very good. We get 3 days face-to-face and a suite of mandatory training when you join and then an annual face-to-face update day. Along with mandatory training modules additional training is available.” Staff were recruited safely.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff told us personal protective equipment (PPE) and all cleaning materials needed were available. They confirmed they had received infection control training. There was a good standard of hygiene. There was an ongoing programme of refurbishment, but some areas around the home were showing signs of wear and tear, which had been identified for refurbishment. We were told by the registered manager they were due to be completed within 6 months. Domestic staff were employed to keep the home clean and tidy. A person commented, “The building is lovely and clean, staff are always cleaning and dusting.”

Most systems at the service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Medicines were stored securely including controlled drugs. Temperatures were recorded for the medicine rooms and fridges. However, the medicines room maximum temperature on the ground floor was exceeded on more than 1 occasion, which could compromise the medicines safety. We were told by the registered manager this was being addressed and air conditioning for the room was being considered by the provider. Staff who administered medicines had the appropriate training and competency checks. Staff worked closely with the GP and pharmacist to make sure medicines were managed appropriately. Records of regular medicines followed national guidance including recording people’s allergies.