You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 July 2021

About the service

Meadbank Care Home was providing nursing and personal care to 146 older people at the time of our inspection. The service can support up to a maximum of 176 people. The care home accommodates people across five separate units, each with their own adapted facilities. Approximately half the people staying at the care home are living with dementia.

People's experience of using this service

At our last inspeciton we found the way the service was managed needed to be improved. This was due in part because we received mixed comments from staff about the leadership approach of the manager who was in charge at the time.

At this inspection we found progress had been made by the provider to improve how the care home was now managed. For example, a new suitably competent and experienced permanent manager was appointed in February 2021 who had applied to be registered with us at the time of our inspection. Furthermore, three qualified nurses had recently been employed to fill the vacant unit managers’ positions. Plans had also been agreed to re-register Meadbank Care Home by the end of 2021 to create two smaller services, which should be easier to manage. Progress made by the provider to achieve this stated aim will be closely monitored by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People received care and support from staff who were now suitably trained to effectively carry out their working roles and responsibilities. However, formal appraisals of staffs overall work performance are overdue and will need to be completed. We discussed this staff support issue with the new manager at the time of our inspection who assured us a time specific action plan was in place for all staff to have their annual work appraised within the next three months.

The provider had failed to notify us about one incident involving a person who had lived at the care home which had resulted in them being seriously injured. We discussed this notification failure with the new manager who understood their responsibilities with regard to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and what they needed to notify us about without delay.

The provider had well-established governance systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the care people received however; we found these processes were not always operated effectively. This is because they had failed to pick up and/or take action to address the aforementioned issues we identified during our inspection. We discussed this matter with the managers who agreed to take appropriate action to improve the effectiveness of their governance systems.

Most people told us they were satisfied with the standard of care and support they or their loved one received at Meadbank Care Home however, we found evidence during our inspection that the provider needed to make improvements.

The service had effective safeguarding systems and procedures in place to keep people safe from the risk of abuse and neglect. People were cared for and supported by staff who knew how to manage risks they might face. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff whose suitability and fitness to work in an adult social care setting had been properly assessed. Medicines systems were safe and people received their prescribed medicines as and when they should. We were assured the service was following safe infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures, including those associated with COVID-19.

People were supported to access to the relevant community health care professionals and services as and when required. The care home worked well with these community professionals and other agencies to provide effective care and support.

People received care and support from managers and staff who were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The new permanent service manager recognised the importance of learning lessons when things went wrong and were keen to continuously improve the care home. The views of people wh

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 July 2021

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 July 2021

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. We have not reviewed the rating at this inspection. This is because we only looked at the parts of this key question we had specific concerns about.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 July 2021

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 July 2021

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 July 2021

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.