We carried out a review of the data available to us about Meadowfield Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Meadowfield Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Meadowfield Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 24 people. The service provides support to older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service. Accommodation is provided over three floors in an adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks to people were assessed and their safety monitored and managed. However, we identified some areas of some care plans where not all the information was consistent.
We have made a recommendation about how the provider reviews their approach to the management and oversight of care plans to ensure consistency.
Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were available to meet people's needs. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely by trained and competent staff. Lessons learned were identified and improvements made when things went wrong.
People received support to eat and drink, where necessary, and staff prompted people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People's needs and choices were assessed and people received care and support in line with current legislation and best practice guidance. Staff were trained and received additional training to support people's individual health conditions and needs. There was a strong staff team ethos, and staff worked consistently together to deliver effective care and support. People's health needs were recorded and monitored. Staff were vigilant in ensuring people received health professional visits and input when necessary. People's needs were met by the adaptation and design of the premises. Dementia-friendly signage was in place. The registered manager had identified a number of areas where the environment and its decoration could be improved. Consent to care and treatment was sought, recorded and monitored in line with legislation and guidance.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff understood people's emotional support needs and provided it. People were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff treated people with dignity. People's privacy was respected and their independence promoted. Staff interactions with people were kind and compassionate.
People received personalised care which was responsive to their needs. Care plans were very person-centred. People's concerns and complaints were recorded, listened and responded to. Feedback was used to review and improve care delivery. People were supported at the end of their life and had their wishes recorded.
There was a clear vision for high-quality care in the home, led by the registered manager. The culture was positive, open and welcoming throughout. There was a governance framework in place to monitor and support quality care delivery. People, relatives and staff were invested and involved in the running of the service. Open communication was embedded in the home. The registered manager led by example to ensure the service continuously learned and improved care. The service worked closely with partner organisations to ensure people received care and support appropriate to their needs.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 21 November 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was undertaken as part of CQC’s scheduled inspection process.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Meadowfied Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 19 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 24 people.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff had a separate entrance to allow them to change clothing, don PPE and take covid tests prior to walking through the service. This also reduced the flow of people at the front entrance.
People were supported to have visitors and alternative arrangements were available to support people to maintain contact with their family and friends in the event of an outbreak.
Staff were vaccinated and took part in regular testing for COVID-19.
At the last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.
There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited.
Staff received appropriate training that gave them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm.
People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind and caring, and they respected people’s privacy and dignity.
Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate record of the person and their day to day needs.
People and their relatives told us they were aware of how to express concerns or make complaints although people told us they had not needed to complain.
The registered manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support they required. People were also given the opportunity to share their views about the service provided.
The feedback we received and our observations on the day of the inspection demonstrated that the home was well managed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 22 July 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 11 July 2013 and found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.
The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 24 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 20 people living at the home. The home is located in Bridlington, a seaside town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to town centre amenities and the sea front, and is on good transport routes.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since 3 July 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us that they felt safe living at Meadowfield Lodge and we saw that the premises were being maintained in a safe condition. We found that people were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage issues of a safeguarding nature. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.
People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were not able to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct authorisations had been applied for.
Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. However, it had been recognised that induction training needed to be more robust to ensure new staff had the skills they needed, and a new induction programme was being introduced. The training record evidenced that most staff had completed training that was considered to be essential by the home.
New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with older people had been employed. We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s individual needs.
Staff that had responsibility for the administration of medication had completed appropriate training. Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that their special diets were catered for, and that they were happy with the meals provided at the home. We saw there was a choice available at each mealtime, and that people had been consulted about the choices available on the home’s menu.
People told us that staff were caring and this was supported by the relatives and health care professionals who we spoke with.
There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives and staff. There had been no formal complaints made to the home during the previous twelve months but there were systems in place to manage complaints if they were received.
People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of improvement to staff practice that would improve safety and the care provided to people who lived at the home. We saw that, on occasions, the outcome of surveys, audits and complaints were used as a learning opportunity for staff.
We saw that there was good interaction between people who lived at the home and staff. The person who lived at the home who we spoke with told us that the staff were good and made time to talk to them. They said, "The staff are very, very good to us". Care plans had been agreed by the people who lived at the home and included sufficient details to inform staff about people's individual needs.
On the day of the inspection we saw that the home was clean and that arrangements to prevent the spread of infection had been introduced, although laundry facilities continued to pose a risk of infection.
The premises were well maintained but the current gas safety certificate could not be found. An engineer was due to visit the home on 25 July to service gas appliances and the manager agreed to send us a copy of the certificate. There was a maintenance plan in place for refurbishment and redecoration.
Staff had been recruited following the organisation's policies and procedures and had received induction training when new in post.
There were some quality monitoring systems in place but these had lapsed during the period when the registered manager had left the home and a new manager had been appointed. The new manager intended to reinstate resident meetings and quality surveys. The home had a satisfactory complaints procedure.