Streets Meadow

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Feedback from a healthcare professional said they, "Encounter mixed experience of whether or not staff are knowledgeable and aware of the individual that [we] have been asked to see. Some staff have no idea about the persons symptoms, whereas others are very aware and helpful." The registered manager explained there were always senior staff on duty, however they may not always be allocated to the unit where the person requiring assistance resides. We were told action would be taken as a priority to rectify this.

People told us their care needs and personal preferences were discussed with them when they moved into Streets Meadow. The provider used an electronic recording system, this meant information could be easily accessed to share with professionals and others involved in people’s care when consent was given. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. Each Best Interest decision was accompanied by an MCA assessment that had been completed by the relevant people. We observed people’s rights were fully respected in practice by staff.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us their care and support needs were assessed, reviewed, and updated as required with them, or a family member as appropriate. People told us their care needs and personal preferences were discussed with them when they moved into Streets Meadow. Staff told us people were offered choices, for example, one staff member said they “Ask people what they want to do for the day and whether they would like a bath or shower.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People’s care plans showed the service worked in conjunction with external health care professionals, to ensure people received the care they required in line with their changing needs.

The provider’s policies reflected national best practice guidance and current legislation.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs, including dietary and cultural preferences had been assessed and planned for. Some people were at risk of choking and had been assessed by a speech and language therapist as requiring their foods to be provided in a specific way to manage this risk. Recognised assessment and monitoring tools were used appropriately to track improvements or concerns. The management team had oversight of these and planned action appropriately with the involvement of family and the staff team.

We observed people being supported by staff to make informed choices about their food and drinks. Staff were seen to be responsive, attentive and supported people in line with their eating and drinking care plan. Staff were given training which followed current good practice guidance. Staff told us how they worked alongside the GP’s, social workers and other health and social care professionals to ensure referrals were made and any recommendations were acted upon. For example, people’s ability to eat safely and maintain a healthy weight were assessed and monitored and appropriate action taken. Staff were knowledgeable regarding people’s eating requirements, and this was clearly recorded to ensure all changes were shared.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People living at Streets Meadow were supported to share their personal histories, preferences, and routines. An activities coordinator was employed to provide activities for people who wished to participate.

Feedback from health and social care professionals about how the service worked to support people when they moved between services was positive. Staff told us the information they had for people was accessible to them through the providers electronic recording system. The registered manager was confident about the provider’s policies to share information, as appropriate with external partners.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were encouraged to live a healthy lifestyle. The provider used an electronic recording system which meant information could be easily accessed to be shared with other professionals and others involved in people’s care when consent was given to do so. People told us how their general wellbeing and health had improved whilst living at Streets Meadow. One relative said, “They understand and are patient with what he needs. They have the time to understand and learn his requirements. They also allow him to be slightly independent as well.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based best practice standards. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations.

Systems and processes were in place to continually monitor and improve people’s outcomes. The staff team worked closely with the GP, dieticians, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists (SaLT). The provider carried out assessments and reviews to ensure they were regularly monitored for changes in their level of need.

Audits were used to identify issues and themes and to learn lessons to provide positive outcomes for people.There were processes to ensure that learning happened when things went wrong. Staff meeting minutes showed reflective practice and collective problem-solving had occurred.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us they were able to make choices about their care and support. Comments included, “The staff are good, very good, they helped me get washed and dressed and helped me brush my teeth. Breakfast was nice, they did give me a choice.”

Managers and staff had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. Staff had received training and told us the importance of asking consent before providing care for people. The service had a process in place to carry out MCA assessments where required. The service had ensured people’s advanced wishes were recorded, and for people who had a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) appointed prior to make decisions about their care, the manager ensured evidence of this was obtained and the LPA was consulted in all decisions.

We observed people’s rights were fully respected in practice by staff. A member of staff told us; “If a person didn’t understand and I felt they lacked capacity, I would talk to my manager.”

Staff understood how to ensure people’s rights were fully respected and had received training in DoLS. The registered manager had oversight of DoLS applications, authorisations, and conditions and had implemented a tracker to ensure all documentation was current.