You are here

The partners registered to provide this service have changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

This inspection took place on 28 November 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

The Meadows Care Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 70 people. People are accommodated in two separate buildings. The service provides care for younger and older people, people living with dementia, and people living with physical disabilities and nursing care needs. Rose Court has 40 beds for people who need nursing care. Lavender Court has 30 beds for people who need residential care. At the time of our inspection, there were a total of 57 people living at the service.

At the previous inspection in February 2017, we identified some improvements were required in two key areas we inspected; ‘Safe’ and ‘Responsive’. This resulted in the service having an overall rating of 'Requires Improvement'. People were not always kept safe from risks associated with the risk of infection. People experienced varying levels of support to maintain interests and hobbies.

During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made, we found improvements had been made and this contributed to the service receiving a rating of ‘Good’ in all the key areas.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our inspection. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Improvements had been made to infection control practice. The environment and equipment was found to be clean and staff followed best practice guidance, in the prevention and control of infections. Improvements had also been made to social activities and opportunities available to people, included community involvement.

Risks associated with people’s needs were assessed and managed. Staff had received additional training and guidance in how to mitigate risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and staff skill mix and competency was considered. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and followed.

People's medicines were managed and administered safely. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and action was taken to reduce further reoccurrence.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. The management team had worked with the local authority safeguarding team to investigate safeguarding incidents and concerns.

Staff received an induction and ongoing training and support. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions.

People received a choice of meals and drinks and were assisted to eat and drink where required. People’s health care needs were assessed and monitored, and staff worked with external healthcare professionals in meeting people’s needs.

People were supported 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.

Independence was encouraged and supported. Information about independent advocacy services was available. People were involved in opportunities to discuss and review how their care and treatment was provided.

Staff had information to support them to understand people’s needs, preferences and diverse needs. People received opportunities to participate in social activities. The provider’s complaint policy and procedure had been made available to people who used the service, relatives and visitors. People’s end of life wishes had been discussed and planned with them.

The systems, audits and checks on quality and safety had improved and the provider had an ongoing action plan to make further improvements. People received opportunities to feedback their experience of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made in infection control practice.

Staff were aware of how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks associated with people’s needs and the environment were assessed and planned for.

Sufficient staffing levels were available and safe staff recruitment processes were used.

Prescribed medicines were managed safely.

Accidents and incidents were acted upon and analysed to mitigate against further risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff received an induction, ongoing training and support.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood.

People received support with their nutritional and hydration needs.

Staff took effective action when changes to people’s health conditions were identified.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

The service was caring.

People received care that met their individual needs and presences. Privacy and dignity was respected.

Advocacy information was available. People and or their relatives, were involved in decisions about care and treatment.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

The service was responsive.

Staff had information and guidance about people’s needs, preferences and routines. Improvements had been made to social activities and opportunities.

People had access to the provider’s complaints procedure. End of life care was person centred.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 January 2019

The service was well-led.

People received opportunities to share their experience about the service.

People, relatives’, staff and external professionals were positive about the leadership of the service.

The provider and registered manager had a commitment to continually drive forward improvements and looked at innovative ways of providing care.