Meadow View

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always support staff to make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, but staff worked in partnership with people to personalise their care. The provider did not always work with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives told us they had not always been involved in planning their care. However, people said staff did check what care they wanted, in the moment. One person told us, “There are things that I am unable to do and the staff know about this. I’ve also told them what I like and what I don’t like.”

People’s care plans generally reflected their health care needs. However, for people living with dementia there was limited information about people’s preferences and routines and how staff could best support them. For example, 1 person could demonstrate low mood and anxiety. There was limited information about techniques staff could use to divert or distract the person during these episodes. More detailed and personalised information would support staff in understanding the reasons behind people’s responses, so they promote positive outcomes for people.

Some staff felt the number of checks they were required to carry out on their handheld devices took them away from spending quality time with people. One staff member told us, “It seems we are mostly walking around doing checks and it has taken away quality time getting to know the residents more and getting to have a good proper chat with them." When we asked another staff member if they had time to sit and talk with people they responded, "Not always but sometimes you have to make time especially if they are upset or agitated or if they want someone to talk to."

Senior staff acknowledged further details was required in people’s care plans to guide staff to provide person-centred care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us staff understood what care they may need and were confident staff would support them well when they received care from other health and social care organisations. Relatives told us they were informed if their family members required support from other agencies.

All health and social care professionals we spoke with told us staff understood the health needs of the people they cared for and advised us Meadow View staff knew what care was available from other health and social care providers to support people. A health professional gave us an example showing how staff had successfully jointly worked with a range of other health and social care professionals, so a person would have the care they needed. Other health and social care professionals described an open and collaborative approach to working together. This helped to ensure people received the care they wanted.

People benefited from continuity of care because their needs were regularly reviewed by other health and social care professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were considered when their needs were assessed and their care plans developed. One person said, “They [staff] listen to me and I can understand what they’re saying.”

Staff gave us examples showing how they had supported people, so their communication and sensory needs were met. One person had dysphagia, [difficulty when swallowing], which impacted on their speech. This person used a laptop and white board to support their verbal communication. A staff member explained using these communication aids meant they could be sure the person was making their own decisions. The registered manger told us in the event of people requiring large font or translation services this would be arranged with support from the provider.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their day to day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People said their views were listened to and they would be confident to raise any concerns about their care. One person told us said they would seek out a favourite member of staff if they had any concerns or issues. Another person said, " I have no complaints or concerns if I did, I would just tell 1 of the staff." A further person told us, “I’ve not got any complaints, if I did have a complaint I would speak to the relevant person.” Relatives knew they could raise any concerns with the registered manager. One relative told us, “We have no complaints, they do look after [person’s name].”

Staff understood their role in escalating any concerns raised and gave us examples showing how they involved people in daily life at the home. A member of the catering staff told us that where possible, they spoke with people who had specific nutritional needs to ensure their preferences were met and they had variety of food they wanted. This staff member commented, “It is about communication with them all. [Name] is gluten free so I will have a chat with them about what they want for lunch and I have a gluten free menu."

Systems were now in place to thoroughly investigate and respond to concerns raised.

People and others were involved in some aspects of life at the home. This included ‘resident and relatives’ meetings’. We saw staff had received compliments about the care provided, and where any changes were requested, such as menu changes and maintenance, these had been actioned.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Relatives and other health and social care professionals told us people were fairly supported, so they were able to access care and accommodation at the home and support from other services. One relative highlighted their family member’s needs linked to their protected characteristics were high when they first came to live at the home. They had settled into life at Meadow View well, with support from staff.

A health and social care professional told us staff had successfully supported one person who was subject to social exclusion to access the services they wanted. The health and social care professional told us, “[Person’s name] was placed in a crisis situation, they were unsafe in the community.”

Staff gave us examples showing how they advocated for people, who may need access to service, but were not always able to raise this themselves, because of their protected characteristics. One staff member told us they would advocate for people to ensure they were able to access the care and support and support they required. They explained, “I am here for the residents. They don't have a voice, I do. If I know they are in pain or there is something wrong with them, I will keep pestering seniors to get someone to check them because I know something is not right."

The registered manager explained how people who were often subject to social exclusion were supported to come and live and the home.

The home was all on 1 level which meant people were able to move around safely and access all areas of the home.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People told us they were treated fairly and gave us examples showing how this had positively impacted on their lives, including reducing their sense of isolation. One person told us they valued the opportunity to be with other people. They said in addition to making friends with other people at the home, they had also developed bonds with their new friend’s extended family. The person said, “Their family have adopted me, and I go there for Christmas day.”

A health and social care professional complimented the registered manager and staff for the work they had done with a person they provided support to. The person had previously lived with a dependency which made them vulnerable. The health and social care professional explained staff had redirected the person and gradually offered alternatives. This had helped to ensure the person was now dependency free, and was enjoying associated improvements in their health and well-being.

Staff gave us an example how they were beginning to meet 1 person’s protected characteristics when the person told staff they wanted to start to walk independently again. Staff broke down the aim into smaller goals to help the person achieve this. Staff said the person was now starting to stand independently, as a milestone within their goal.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life, however, staff adapted how they cared for them and did consider people’s and relatives wishes.

There was an inconsistent approach to planning people’s end of life care and some people’s care plans contained limited evidence that people had been encouraged to share their wishes for how they wanted to be cared for when their health deteriorated. It is important to do this, so people’s final wishes are identified and appropriate care provided. One relative said they had not had the opportunity to sit down with staff to consider a plan for their family member’s end of life care, but they had discussed around their family member’s DNACPR form, [Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation]. However, the relative said, “[Person’s name] was happy to be staying at Meadow View. Staff would listen to me if I had any suggestions, they were always very approachable.” Another relative told us, “We did an end of life care plan, we, sat down at start of [person’s name] deterioration. Staff offered us options, we knew they could arrange priest.”

Relatives told us the majority of their family member care needs were met at the end of their lives. One relative said. “They were brilliant they cared for [person’s name] very well. Staff could not get their medicines locally, so staff drove to Stratford Upon Avon to pick them up, so they would not be in discomfort. [Person’s name] was happy.” Another relative told us their family member had been treated with compassion by staff and told us, “A staff member came and sat with [person’s name], and watched football with them, which they enjoyed, right to the end.” However, a relative said they had to request last offices, [personal care], was provided to their family member, directly after their death.

Relatives said they too were supported by staff. A relative told us, “[Staff] asked if we wanted tea, or to stop over, and offered to make us sandwiches. I quite miss the place. That says a lot for the home. They said to us don’t be strangers.”

People were treated with respect on their final journey from the home. One relative said, “When they left, the carers lined up to respect his departure. It was absolutely lovely.” Another relative told us, “Everyone, [staff], walked out to say goodbye and that was lovely. Some of them were in tears and we knew they really did like [person’s name].”

Staff told us there was support from senior staff and peers when they cared for people at the end of their lives, which helped to ensure their own wellbeing needs were met.