Meridan House

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 was the first assessment for this newly registered service after the provider made changes to their registration. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The person’s needs had been assessed and was known to the provider, but they had not been updated in their assessment, even though changes in need had been identified by staff and the registered manager. Some aspects of their care planning needed to be tailor made to promote the delivery of care for this person, but this was not always happening.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Some aspects of this person’s care were planned with the person, such as how they wanted to live their life day to day. But some aspects were not. The provider had not ensured there was evidential records about when a person in receipt of care received health services and input. Improvements were needed to involve the person routinely with other aspects of their life.

The registered manager worked well across teams and services to support people.

Most staff were familiar with this person’s needs and changing needs. We saw staff working well together to support other people to promote a calm friendly atmosphere in the home.

The registered manager 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.

Work had been completed to promote and support this person to live as healthy a life as they wanted to. Care plans were created to direct staff how they could do this. A health professional spoke well of staff responding to this person’s health needs and seeking their involvement when this was needed.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

This person’s care needs were being monitored by staff and the registered manager, but they had not recorded this work. Care plans were not always updated. Reviews were not considered to look at different ways of trying to meet this person’s needs. An appropriate referral was made for this person. There were long delays in this person getting the help they needed regarding this. The managers had followed this up, but they had not considered what else they could do, so this person had a timely outcome, and their needs were met sooner.

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

Consent was sought from staff, and this was recorded in this person’s care plans and risk assessments. Positive work had been undertaken and recorded to support the people around this person to understand this person’s right to make their own choices about their life.