Meadow Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant services were not always planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices or work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our observations showed a person-centred approach was followed by staff in their interactions with people. Staff felt there was effective communication with leaders, and they were aware of when people’s needs had changed. However, people’s care plans were not always person- centred. Some had accurate, up to date information reflective of the person’s needs. However, other care plans were lacking in specific detail relating to those with additional needs. Specific interventions or support that individuals required, were missing in some people’s care plans. However, the service told us they had considered aspects of the environment and aids such as calendars to ensure care was person centred.

The service did not always understand the health and care needs of people and local communities so that care is joined up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was some evidence of an understanding of local community needs. The service had good links with local churches and the local community who were actively involved in various events held in the service. The service mainly supported older people living with dementia and/or physical health needs. However, several people had diverse care needs and there was a lack of understanding of how to meet these individual needs. For example, appropriate referrals had not been made to external services to meet people’s communication and sensory needs. There were shortfalls in providing an environment that catered for the needs of all those receiving care at the service.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Complaints procedures were displayed in the reception entrance however this area was locked and not accessible to people. There was no information available to people about safeguarding procedures. The service did not display menus on tables. Activities information was available in the dining area for people to see. The service’s last inspection report and rating were displayed.

The service gave opportunity for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care or told them what had changed as a result.

People felt able to speak to staff and share their concerns with them and felt confident any issues would be rectified. One person told us: “If I had a problem I would tell any of them, they would listen.” Regular resident’s meetings provided an opportunity for people and their relatives to discuss their care and provide any feedback. Staff also held regular one to one meeting’s with people to give them an opportunity to provide feedback.

The service did not always ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some people had additional needs including sensory and communication needs. People were not given opportunity to fully maximise opportunities to access the care they required. For example, 1 person was visually impaired. This individual was living with dementia at the time of the assessment. However, there was a lack of evidence in the individual’s care plan to show what support or interventions had been considered to meet this need, such as, the use of braille or access to external agencies.

Staff and leaders did not always listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant that people’s care, support and treatment was not always tailored in response to this.

People and relatives were confident any concerns they had would be managed efficiently and appropriately. One person told us, “If I have a problem, they [staff] listen, and they do deal with it. They come and check on my care record with me.” We found staff to be responsive to people’s needs.

However, we found the service did not always tailor support for those who may experience inequalities. For example, the service did not offer accessible information or support to individuals with an identified communication need. The service did not provide sufficient specific training to staff to support individuals who may experience inequality such as those with a learning disability. The service had an Equality and Diversity policy in place and staff had completed Equality and Diversity training. However, the service lacked an understanding of how an individual with a protected characteristic under The Equality Act 2010, may require individual and personalised care that demonstrates staff competence and knowledge in that area of care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care plans had been completed with people and their relatives. These plans were thorough and considered individual needs, preferences and included information pertaining to DNAR arrangements, end of life treatments and personal arrangements required for each person.