Meadow Acres

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

When reviewing people’s daily records over a two‑week period, we found that individuals were engaging in limited meaningful activity with staff support. Although some records showed attendance at a day centre, it was unclear whether this reflected incomplete documentation or a lack of opportunities for people to participate in activities that were purposeful or aligned with their preferences. For example, one person’s records showed they left the home only twice in two weeks to attend a day centre, spending the remainder of their time in the house watching TV, relaxing or listening to music. We also noted variation in people’s day‑to‑day experiences within the service; some individuals had positive, meaningful relationships with staff, demonstrated through warm communication and involvement in daily decision‑making, whereas others experienced minimal interaction. The provider had identified the need for improvement in care plans. Care plans lacked details in relation to people’s health and social needs. For example, how to support someone with meaningful activities that people may enjoy.

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 were supported to build relationships in their local communities. Where people were supported by more than one service staff worked collaboratively to ensure the person’s care was joined-up.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We found examples of easy read format were appropriate; however, further development could be considered for people to have their care plans in a format that was accessible and meaningful to them.

People and relatives told us the provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Some relatives felt that there could be an increase in communication particularly when updating them on the relatives change of health needs. A relative said, “l would like to be told more about [Relative] medical issues or problems, at the moment l have to ask them, the information isn't volunteered.”The management team had taken steps to respond to complaints and concerns raised, demonstrating a commitment to improving the service.

People were supported to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff felt that people received support that promoted equality, where they felt this was not the case they advocated for individuals. The registered manager shared examples where they had advocated for people to be seen by health professionals where it was required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff demonstrated efforts to support people, but there were inconsistencies that led to unequal experiences. Some individuals received more personalised communication and support than others. For example, while care plans identified the use of visual aids and Makaton, these were not consistently implemented in practice. On one occasion, we observed a staff member not engaging with a person who was trying to initiate conversation. Strengthening staff awareness and consistency in communication approaches would help ensure that all individuals feel heard, respected, and supported in a way that reflects their personal needs and preferences.

People were supported to plan for the future when significant life changes occurred, this included at the end of their life. However further consideration needed to be given regarding people long term life plans and aspirations.