Meadow View

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were positive about the staff caring for them. One person said of staff, “They’re very, very good and nice and kind.” Another person said, “The staff are very kind here. I like all of the staff.” A further person told us, “The staff really are excellent. They’re kind; I’ve not seen them being unkind to anyone.”

Staff valued the bonds they had built with the people they cared for. One staff member said, “I love the residents [people].” We saw individual moments of care and compassion. One person was confused and a member of ancillary staff said, “Take my hand and we will walk down to the dining room together.” One person told us, “They [staff] take an interest in you and what you do, especially with me and my medical conditions. They are always there to help."

People said staff understood their right to be treated in a dignified way. One person said, “[Staff] always knock the door before they come in my room, they don’t just walk in.” We saw staff were respectful to the people they supported. For example, staff ensured they chatted to people, maintained good eye contact and thanked people after they had administered their medicines to them.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People said staff had a good understanding of people’s needs what mattered to them. One person said because of the approach taken by staff, “I’m happy with what they do for me.” Staff knew who liked to talk with staff, so they would feel reassured, and who liked physical contact for reassurance.

However, some people’s care plans contained limited information about people’s history, backgrounds, hobbies, preferences and personal routines. For example, 1 person’s care plan said they liked music and reading but gave no information about what sort of music the person liked or the type of books they preferred to read. Providing more personalised information improves people’s quality of life and helps staff build meaningful relationships with people.

Despite limited records, more longstanding staff knew information about people that helped them have meaningful conversations with them. One staff member explained, “It is getting to know their interests and hobbies and what they used to like doing when they were younger, before they came into a home."

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, the range and availability of interesting things for people to do needed to be developed further.

Not everyone felt there was sufficient support to do things they enjoyed. One person said, “I like to read the newspaper when I can get hold of one. I don’t do much all day. I do join in with the activities, some of the staff are good they will play games sometimes.” There was no activities co-ordinator in post at the time of our inspection. The provider was recruiting into the role, and a member of staff had been identified on the rota to provide support in the interim. Whilst we saw people engage in some games and read the daily newspaper during our inspection, there were long periods of time when there was no meaningful activity or stimulation. There were limited staff resources available to support people who were cared for in their rooms. Care staff told us they tried to do activities with people but found it difficult to fit in with their other care tasks. One staff member told us, “We do what we can when we can, it depends on whether we are short. We do have the juke box on, or we put a film on in the TV room. There is colouring and painting."

In effective, we have explained where people had limited capacity to make decisions, people were not always involved or consulted in the decision making process.

However, people were encouraged and supported by staff to make their own day to day choices. One person told us, “I tell the staff what I would like each day, and they make sure that I get it." Another person highlighted they were pleased they had been able to decide which GP practice they wanted to continue to support them. A further person said, “I like it here, I have freedom.” This included spending time independently in the community as the person wished. This enabled the person to pursue their links to the local community and with other organisations that were important to them. One person was supported to retain independence in certain aspects of their personal care and manage their own medication.

People told us they valued the interesting things available for them to do, such as regular visits from a singer. One person said, “They put many events on here.” Another person said, “We went to Weston-Super-Mare, we’ve been to Henley and we had an ice cream. We go to garden centres quite a few times. [Staff] will walk round and ask if we would like to go.”

In effective, we have explained where people had limited capacity to make decisions, people were not always involved or consulted in the decision making process.

Relatives and staff told us there were no restrictions on visits. One relative said, “We can visit any time we like and stay for as long as we like.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded to their requests for assistance. A relative told us, “You can find staff easily if I need them. There’s always staff around and they are very willing.”

Most people told us they did not use their call bell, however, people and relatives told us they were confident to do so, when required. No concerns were raised by people or relatives regarding experiencing delays in assistance.

Staff described instances where they had promptly supported people. This included when people had experienced a fall, so there would be no delays in obtaining emergency treatment for them, and when people wanted additional reassurance when they were distressed.

We saw people did not have to wait long for key elements of their care from staff. For example, a person in their room experienced a period of anxiety and called out for staff 2 staff promptly went to them to reassure them, using phrases which connected with the person and their past. The recruitment of an activities staff member and review of deployment of staff will further help to ensure people’s wider care needs are consistently met.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Overall, most staff felt supported in their role with 1 staff member commenting, “They try and help the staff as much as they can." Another care staff member told us, “They [senor staff] are good if we have to ‘phone in, if we can’t attend shift.”

However, there was still a lack of confidence from some staff about the mechanisms in place to support the emotional and physical wellbeing of staff. The provider had introduced monthly well-being surgeries for staff, which had been publicised to staff, but no one had attended these to date. When we asked 1 staff member if there was any counselling support, they responded, “I don’t think they do, I am not too sure."

In addition, a change had been introduced in one area of the home, which may affect staff well-being when staff undertook their role. Some staff expressed concern about the practice describing it as ‘intrusive’ and ‘uncomfortable’. The provider’s representative agreed to consider the impact of this on staff and was signposted to additional information to assist them.