You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 March and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 6 December 2016 and there had been three breaches of legal requirements at that time. We rated the service requires improvement in two of the key questions, effective and well led. We found at this inspection significant improvements had been made. The registered manager had submitted an action plan to the Care Quality Commission so that we could monitor the improvements made.

Meadowcare Home provides accommodation for up to 34 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of our visit there were 30 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns. Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and acted on these to keep people safe.

People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff understood the importance of infection control and prevention.

There were enough suitable staff to meet people's needs. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others.

Appropriate checks were made before staff started to work to make sure they were suitable to work in a care setting.

Medicines were handled appropriately and stored securely. Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were signed to indicate people's prescribed medicine had been given.

Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and received regular supervision and appraisals.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had received appropriate training, and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were monitored and encouraged with their eating and drinking where required and concerns about their health were quickly followed up with referrals to relevant professionals.

Staff were caring, and people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and understood how to communicate with them. People's privacy was respected, and their dignity and independence promoted.

People's needs were reviewed and monitored on a regular basis. Care records were reflective of people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis. People knew about the service's complaints procedures and knew how to make a complaint.

People were supported and helped to maintain their health and to access health services when they needed them.

There was system in place for responding to and acting on complaints, comments, feedback and suggestions.

There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. People's feedback was sought through annual satisfaction surveys.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

The service remains safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

The service was now effective.

Staff benefitted from training, induction and a programme of supervision.

People were monitored and encouraged with their eating and drinking, when required.

Staff understood the need to gain consent and followed legislation designed to protect people�s rights and freedom.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

The service remains caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

The service remains responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 April 2018

The service was now well-led.

There was an open transparent culture and staff worked well together.

The service was committed to continuous improvement of people�s care and support experiences.

Systems were in place to audit and check the quality of the service.

People�s views and feedback were used to make changes and improvements to the service.