Meadowview Neurological Centre Inspire Neurocare (Basingstoke) Limited

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.

This service scored 71 (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.

Overall, people’s needs were assessed prior to moving to the service, and staff told us they were kept informed about people’s needs. Minutes of staff meetings showed the admission process had been reviewed so staff felt more informed about people’s needs before they moved in. A staff member said, “New people have an assessment pack. We [staff] go to meet people before they come here, and they can come here for visits as well. All the information from all the different assessments is handed over to staff. We make a point of people having a care plan in place before people step foot here.”

People told us that staff from the service had come to meet them before moving in. Records showed people’s support and any rehabilitation needs had been reviewed regularly; however, there was no documented evidence that people had been involved in this. Although some people’s relatives told us they were aware of the care plan, people we spoke with told us they had not seen their plan.

Staff told us when people’s needs changed, they were updated during shift handovers or via the messaging service on the electronic care planning device.

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.

The service used national recognised tools when planning people’s care. There was oversight of people’s wellbeing, such as people’s weight, dietary needs and skin integrity. People were referred to external health professionals for additional guidance support as required.

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.

Staff gave mixed feedback about communication within the service. Some staff told us it was “good”, whilst others told us it could be improved and that verbal messages were not consistently passed on. Some staff told us they felt this may be because of the use of agency staff. However, records of handovers, and daily ‘huddle’ meetings for example, showed key messages were shared across all departments at the service. Staff satisfaction with communication had been reviewed as part of the latest staff survey, and review of the results showed the service was working on consistency of communication.

Staff told us communication with external health professionals was good. One health professional told us, “I find working with staff at Meadow View a positive experience. The staff are professional and caring.”

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’s healthcare needs were assessed and care plans in relation to these were informative. People and their relatives told us they were supported to access healthcare services, both at the service and other appointments. People’s relatives told us they were kept informed about any health appointments or when their family member was unwell. One person’s relative told us staff kept them informed if their family member had a seizure for example.

Records showed people had enough to eat and drink. People gave positive feedback about the chef and the quality of the food. A person told us, "The chefs are amazing, [name] is a lovely chef, the food is lovely. I don't eat well so he comes in and says, if you get this or that, I will cook it for you. He will do anything for you." People's weight was monitored and records showed that if people lost weight, this was escalated and advice sought. Another person's relative told us, "[Name] had lost weight, but the staff monitored it, and [name] had supplements, and has now gained weight. The food is good there."

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 and the expectations of people themselves.

A person’s relative told us the service had supported their family member to be more mobile. They said, “Slowly but surely, [name] is improving.” There was a team of rehabilitation staff based on site, including physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Another person’s relative told us they attended regular review meetings to discuss “goals, physio etc.”

Care plans contained information regarding people's nutrition and hydration needs and included monitoring arrangements and risk assessments where required. This included support for people with poor appetites, specialised diets, swallowing difficulties and people receiving nutrition via gastrostomy tube. When required, staff monitored people’s intake and records showed concerns about poor diet had been escalated appropriately. People who required support with eating and drinking were provided with dedicated staff assistance during mealtimes to ensure they received support safely and at a pace suitable for them. We saw staff supporting one person with their lunch and this was done safely.

Care staff and kitchen staff received training in International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI). This helped to ensure people received meals and drinks that met their assessed needs. The chef told us they worked closely with the onsite speech and language therapy team.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent.

People had been assessed for their capacity to consent to aspects of their care. However, when people were assessed as lacking capacity, it was not always clear how best interest decisions had been made because records of best interest meetings were not always available. This meant it was not always clear who had been involved in the decision making and any discussions around less restrictive options that had been taken into consideration. This included the use of restraints such as bed rails, lap belts and sensor mats. This had been highlighted during a recent internal review of the service but had not yet been fully actioned. We fed this back to the management team and after the inspection we were provided with records of updated best interest decision meetings.

Staff told us how they assessed consent to care and that if people refused, they would go back later or find another member of staff to try instead. A staff member said, “I would respect people’s choices. I’m here to provide care, not to make decisions for anybody.”

People told us staff asked for their consent prior to supporting them.