Archived: The Meadows Nursing Home

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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was previously in breach of regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the service remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 50 (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’s systems had not been effective to enable managers to oversee people’s current care and treatment needs. People’s care records did not fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. At our last assessment in February 2024, we identified improvements were required to ensure care records were accurate and up to date. At this assessment whilst regular reviews were taking place, we found some care records were not reflective of people’s current needs and wishes. For example, 1 person had arrangements in place for their funeral plan, staff had not recorded this in the persons care records. We received mixed reviews from relatives about their involvement in their family members care planning. Comments included, “I am not aware of any reviews taking place. They don’t communicate with me about it” and “I don’t have regular reviews, at least they don’t involve me if they take place”. However, some relatives told us they had been involved, one relative said, “They have a patient of the month, and they will phone me and ask me if I’m happy and discuss anything. I find this happens regularly enough”. Some people were at risk of social isolation. Engagement with people by staff was not always offered equitably between people who used communal areas and by people that chose or were in a position of receiving their care in their own rooms. People were not always given opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies.

People were not always in control of planning their care and support. We saw limited evidence of people’s involvement in decisions about their care. Where people required support with this, their family member or representatives were not always involved.

Leaders and staff did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff did not routinely share care plans with people or relatives, and we found some were not accurate or up to date. The manager told us 1 person living at the services required support with communication and they had picture cards and a board in their room so staff could communicate with them. We saw the board was in use in the room but did not see evidence of picture cards in use.

Managers gave people an opportunity to make suggestions through resident meetings. We saw that managers had taken some action as a result of comments made by people, however, some issues raised had gone unaddressed. Also, managers did not capture the views of those residents who may not be able to attend the resident meetings. The manager told us they had sent a survey out to relatives in July 2024 but had not reviewed the results. Most relatives we spoke with told us they had not been asked to give feedback on the service. Those who had raised complaints or concerns felt managers had not acted upon these. One relative told us,” I have raised concerns, but nothing happens, and you don’t hear from them”.

People had access to healthcare services. Health care professionals visited the service on a regular basis to support people with their health and medical needs. The manager told us they worked with various professional to support people with their care needs for example, GP’s, optician, dentist and speech and language therapists.

Staff did not always take protected characteristics into account when planning people’s care. Managers did not ensure support and equipment to enable people to be integrated into their community was available. Most staff had not undertaken equality and diversity training to support them to understand equality and identify discrimination.

Staff did not fully support people to plan for important life changes. For example, end of life plans were basic and staff had not fully explored or documented people’s wishes. However, decisions in relation to resuscitation and emergency care carried out by professionals were in place. Some people had ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ forms (DNACPR) and (ReSPECT) forms. ReSPECT forms are personalised recommendations for people’s clinical care in emergency situations, where they are not able to make decisions or express their wishes.