You are here

Meadowbank Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

Meadowbank Residential Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Meadowbank Residential Care Home can accommodate 22 people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities. The service cares for adults, including people living with early stages of dementia. The premises are modern and purpose-built. People live in their own bedrooms and have access to communal facilities such as dining, lounge and activities areas. At the time of our inspection, there were 20 people living at the service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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. At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

People’s safety was maintained. This included protection from the risks of abuse, neglect, discrimination, injuries and accidents. People’s care documentation and the support they received ensured their maximum safety. The risks from the building and premises were mitigated, but the provider was required to update some assessments after out inspection. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of infections. The service was clean and well-maintained. The management of people’s medicines was robust.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff induction, training, supervision and performance appraisals ensured workers had the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively support people. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. We found there was appropriate access to other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People had adequate nutrition and hydration to ensure their wellbeing.

Staff had developed positive relationships with people who used the service and visitors. There was complimentary feedback from most people who used the service and their families. People told us they were able to participate in care planning and reviews and we saw evidence of decision-making that promoted people’s independence. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.

The service provided person-centred care. Care plans were thorough and contained information of how to support people in the best possible way. We saw there was an appropriate complaints system in place. There were regular meetings and surveys to ensure respective points of view could be conveyed to the service. People and their families had a say in the everyday decision-making and operation of the service.

There was a clear focus on the quality of care at the service. This was outlined in the provider’s statement of purpose. The nominated individual and registered manager were dedicated and committed to ensure that people received the best possible care. Staff described a positive workplace culture where their contribution was recognised. The service regularly checked the safety and quality of care through audits. Action plans were developed to ensure that any improvement required were completed. There was continued investment in the service to increase the satisfaction of people that lived at Meadowbank Residen

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was safe.

Staff protected people from the risks of abuse or neglect.

Appropriate risk assessments about people�s care were completed and regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

People�s medicines were safely managed.

People�s injuries were recorded, reported and acted on to ensure their wellbeing.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was effective.

There was good staff support, with satisfactory staff induction, training, supervision and performance reviews.

People�s nutrition and hydration needs were effectively met.

The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were assisted to make informed decisions or decisions were made in their best interests.

The premises and decoration were suitable for adults in a residential environment.

The service worked well with other community healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were committed and friendly.

People�s independence was respected and promoted.

People�s choices about care were encouraged and protected.

People received care in a dignified way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was tailored to their needs.

People�s care was reviewed and changed, when required.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 February 2018

The service was well-led.

People and relatives told us the service was well-led.

There was a good workplace culture with clear organisational goals and objectives.

Staff were involved in the operation of the service and had good access to the management team.

Relevant audits were completed to ensure safe, quality care.

The service was compliant with their conditions of the registration.