Meadow Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider analysed all accidents and incidents to make sure action was taken to minimise further risks for people. Actions taken included sharing learning with staff on an individual and team basis.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Feedback from professionals demonstrated how the service worked in partnership to maintain consistency for people. They told us that people starting to use the service had opportunities to visit and meet with staff.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People looked comfortable and relaxed with the staff who supported them. Staff we spoke with told us they knew how to report concerns about abuse. All staff said they were confident that any allegations would be taken seriously, and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

One relative told us they thought their loved one was very safe at the service. They said, “They spot any issues before they happen. They are very good like that.”

The provider worked with other professionals to make sure applications for people to be deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were made. This ensured people’s legal rights were protected.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to live fulfilling lives not to restrict them. This included identifying the support people needed with day-to-day activities and accessing the community with minimum risks to themselves and others.

The provider liaised with the landlord to make sure any potential risks were detected and controlled. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were tenants in their own self-contained apartments. The provider had supported people to adapt their homes to their individual tastes and needs. For example, one person required an environment which provided minimal stimulation to promote their wellbeing whilst others liked to have lots of personal belongings around them.

The care provider liaised with the landlord of the properties to ensure any maintenance and improvements were carried out.

People used a service where there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs. Staff worked together to make sure people received their care and support safely. There was quality training which supported staff to meet the needs of people with a learning disability or autistic people.

Staff spoken with told us there were always enough staff to meet people’s needs and ensure they had safe access to activities. One relative said, “Yes, always enough staff.”

Risks to people were minimised because the provider had systems to make sure only appropriate staff were recruited. Staff records showed a safe recruitment system.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were cared for by staff who had received training in infection prevention and control. Staff had access to personal protective equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons. This helped to minimise risks to people.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed for them. Staff were knowledgeable about clients and their medicines, and people’s preferences were recorded and taken into account.

When medicines were administered, they were recorded on Medicines Administration Record (MAR) charts. These charts were produced by the service, however they were not signed and checked by the staff involved. This would provide an audit trail and help minimise the risks of any errors occurring.

There had been improvements to the way medicines prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ were managed. There were personalised protocols in place with clear information to guide staff when these might be needed. Staff were aware of STOMP (an initiative to stop over-medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people) and had worked with psychiatrists to reduce and minimise the use of sedative or psychotropic medicines. Risk assessments were in place for higher-risk medicines such as flammable paraffin-containing topical preparations.

There were suitable arrangements for ordering, storage and disposal, and temperature monitoring was carried out to make sure medicines would be safe and effective.

Staff had training and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. Regular medicines checks and audits took place, and we saw that these identified areas and actions for improvement, which were recorded when completed.