Meadow Acres

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support achieve good outcomes, however sometimes inconsistent.

This service scored 63 (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 make sure people’s care plans and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. People’s care plans, on the whole, were detailed and gave a sense of the person’s immediate needs, and were regularly reviewed. However, the plans available did not consistently cover all aspects of people’s assessment needs, which meant staff did not have the necessary guidance to deliver person-centred care. The manager had already identified the need to develop the care plans and was actively working to address this by engaging with staff who know individuals well, to build a more complete and accurate picture of each person’s needs and preferences.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment. Where people had specific needs around nutrition and hydration, staff were knowledgeable and able to describe how they supported individuals appropriately, although this was not always reflected in care documentation and as a result where new staff came in this may pose a risk to individuals.

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. Staff told us they worked well together to support people, and we observed positive teamwork during the inspection, reflecting a shared commitment to delivering care. The manager acknowledged gaps in staff knowledge about individuals and was working with staff who knew people well to build a clearer picture of each person’s needs. Peoples care plans lacked information about their long-term aspirations and dreams, as a result people did not have clear plans in place to share with services to help them achieve their goals.After the inspection the provider produced a document completed for individuals long term goals, this identified some personal goals, however, many were not person‑led, realistic, or appropriately framed, and include clinical tasks rather than meaningful long‑term goals and therefore require revision to align with regulatory standards.

People were supported to access healthcare services and attend appointments. Staff worked closely with professionals such as GPs, social workers, and mental health teams to ensure continuity of care. People were supported by staff who actively involved health professionals when people needed them. Staff described what they would look out for if the person needed health intervention. During the inspection the management team were actively consulting with professionals to review people’s health and wellbeing.

People were supported to regularly review the support they received from the provider and other health agencies. They ensured outcomes were positive, and people were involved in those discussions. People’s life experience and strengths were discussed. However, managers acknowledged they were still getting to know some people and care plans required more detailed short, mid and long-term goals.

The service followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people to make their own decisions and respected their right to take informed risks.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to explain how they ensured people’s consent was sought. A member of staff told us, “People are supported to make choices about their day, such as what they want to do, eat, or wear, and their views are listened to. When someone is not able to make a specific decision, we follow the Mental Capacity Act and act in their best interests by involving them as much as possible, consulting family or professionals, and respecting their dignity. For example, I have supported someone by offering simple choices and explaining things clearly so they could be involved in decisions about their care.”

People’s care plans included capacity assessments which detailed how their capacity for the decision was assessed. Where needed, best interest decisions were made, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were requested or in place.