Archived: Meadow Bank Care Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider recently moved from a paper-based system to an electronic system to document people’s assessments and care records. This meant staff could easily see people’s needs on handheld devices, and record people’s care notes in a timely manner. Records were reviewed monthly. Although there was a process to include people and relatives, some people told us they did not always feel involved in planning or reviewing their care.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff understood people’s dietary requirements and the provider used recognised tools to assess people’s needs, for example in relation to risk of malnutrition or risk to skin health. Staff knew what action to take if someone had a fall and we saw evidence of appropriate monitoring of people following a fall.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There was effective co-ordination within the 4 units, and staff said they worked well as a team. A person said, “The staff work together well and help each other.” Due to the makeup of the different units, people could move from 1 unit to an alternative, if their needs changed or deteriorated. This meant information was handed over effectively and staff knew people’s needs and preferences. We saw evidence of good working relationships with external health teams and effective handover processes.

The provider 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.

There was a wellbeing team onsite to support people to participate in activities within the home and provide stimulation. People could access the garden areas and staff supported people to visit the local community. Staff organised external visitors such as singers and musicians. Food was freshly prepared on the premises and there was plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables available. A relative said, “Staff are good at encouraging people to eat, often offering alternatives.” People were supported to access health checks, and the dentist visited the home.

Some people said they would enjoy more opportunities to participate in physical exercise, and relatives agreed this could be improved.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff monitored aspects of people’s health and wellbeing according to their needs. For example, if people were at risk of malnutrition staff recorded people’s weight on a weekly basis and took action if concerns were noted. Staff also recorded what food people ate and the amounts. Staff monitored the health of people’s skin and made referrals to health professionals if they noticed any issues. We found that 2 people could benefit from staff recording fluid charts to help monitor their health which was arranged following our feedback.

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

Staff completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the principles around consent to care and treatment. We observed staff talking to people during care tasks and seeking consent; this was also evident in care notes and care plans. Relatives said staff always talked to people about what they were doing.

There were Mental Capacity Act assessments in people’s care records, and copies of consent forms for issues such as consent for vaccines.