You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This inspection took place on 18 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Meadow View is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Meadow View is registered to accommodate up to six people. The service supports people with autism and a learning disability. The service is a house with six bedrooms and communal living areas, in a residential area in Northampton. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. At the time of our inspection, five people were living at the service.

The service had two registered managers in post. 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.

People were safe, and staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. People had risk assessments in place to cover any risks that were present within their lives, but also enabled them to be as independent as possible. All the staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by the registered managers.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people's current needs, and rotas showed that staffing was consistent.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. References and security checks were carried out as required.

Staff attended induction training where they completed mandatory training courses and were able to shadow more experienced staff giving care. Staff told us that they were able to update their mandatory training with refresher courses.

Staff supported people with the administration of medicines, and were trained to do so. The people we spoke with were happy with the support they received.

Staff were well supported by the registered managers, senior team and provider, and had one to one supervisions and observations.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. Consent forms were signed and held within people's files.

People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this. Staff supported people to access health appointments when necessary. Health professionals were involved with people's support as and when required.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. People told us they were happy with the way that staff spoke to them, and they provided their care in a respectful and dignified manner.

People were involved in their own care planning as much as they could be, and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. Care planning was personalised and mentioned people's likes and dislikes, so that staff understood their needs fully. People were in control of their care and listened to by staff.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. This ensured people and their families were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required. The people we spoke with knew how to use it or felt confident in raising concerns.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and comprehensive audits were taking p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe.

There were risk assessments in place to mitigate any identified risks to people.

There was sufficient staff to provide the care people needed. Recruitment practices ensured that people were safeguarded against the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines and people could be assured they were cared for by staff who understood their responsibilities to keep them safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective.

People were involved in decisions about the way their support was delivered; staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing people's capacity to make decisions about their care.

People received support from staff that had the skills and experience to meet their needs and who received regular supervision and support.

People had access to a healthy balanced diet and their health care needs were regularly monitored.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was caring.

Positive relationships had developed between people and staff. People were treated with kindness and respect.

Staff maintained people's dignity and there were measures in place to ensure that people's confidentiality was protected.

People and where appropriate their families were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed before they came to stay at the home to ensure that all their individual needs could be met.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and take part in activities.

People were aware that they could raise a concern about their care and there was written information provided on how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was well-led

There was an open and inclusive culture which focussed on providing person-centred care.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care and actions were taken whenever shortfalls were identified.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their feedback and be involved in the development of the home.