Meadow Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring- this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service ensured people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion.

We had consistent positive feedback from people and their relatives regarding staff. People described the staff as, “Kind and thoughtful” and “They are very polite. They are kind, they go out of their way to do stuff for you.” Our observations found staff knew people well, showed good communication skills and displayed empathy and compassion in their interactions with people.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Our review of care plans found these to be of mixed quality. Some care plans were person centred to meet individuals likes and preferences. One person told us, “I can have a bath or a shower when I want one. I am usually first up and last to bed; it is my choice.” We observed people were supported to express their individual preferences and needs in one-to-one discussions with staff. However, other care plans were not always reflective of people’s individual needs. For example, people with additional needs such as learning disability. The service put measures in place to address these issues following feedback.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff felt they knew people well and this was apparent during our site visits. We observed staff showed kindness and compassion towards people and actively promoted their independence, choice and control. One person told us, “Staff are polite, and the food is nice.” People were offered food choices and meals which were tailored to meet their individual preferences. One person told us, “I like whiskey. They bring it up every night – a double with lemonade.” People and relatives provided positive feedback about the service. One person told us, “They are lovely, efficient and good fun; they are 100%.” Another person said: “It’s very nice and friendly.” There were regular activities available within the service, which people were told about and were asked if they wanted to partake. There was music playing that met people’s preferences. People were able to mobilise freely between the different communal areas. People were supported to make their own decisions as far as possible. For example, 1 person enjoyed going to the pub on a regular basis and this was well supported by staff.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment or acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff were responsive to people’s needs when they required in the moment support. Call bells were answered swiftly by staff members. One person told us, “When you buzz, they [staff] come quite quickly.” Staff were responsive to escalating needs and used de-escalation or distraction techniques to support individual’s emotional and behavioural needs.

The service showed that they care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. However, they did not always support or enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mostly positive feedback from staff about the support they received from the service. One staff member told us, “The management are really approachable.” Staff felt able to approach management regarding any concerns they had or any ideas to drive improvement within the service.

Staff felt there was good communication from leaders where there had been any changes. However, the results from the staff survey in 2024 were mixed. Most staff felt there was a lack of staffing on both day and night shifts. However, the provider’s staff dependency tool showed higher than average staffing levels within the service. The service responded to the staff survey by reviewing staff accuracy tool on a weekly basis to ensure safe staffing ratios.

Staff felt they lacked appropriate training in some areas to support people’s individual needs. Staff also advised they did not receive regular supervision or appraisal. The service has put measures in place to better promote workforce wellbeing following feedback.