• Care Home
  • Care home

Lincroft Meadow Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Moors, Kidlington, Oxfordshire, OX5 2AA 0808 281 9552

Provided and run by:
Porthaven Care Homes No 2 Limited

Assessment report published 23 December 2025

On this page

Effective

Good

18 December 2025

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had detailed, comprehensive care and support plans that guided staff and were reviewed regularly, including whenever needs changed. The service had robust processes to assess physical, emotional, and social care needs before admission. These assessments were thorough and person-centred, ensuring the service could meet each individual’s needs and preferences safely and effectively. Assessments were carried out by trained senior staff and involved the individual and their family members where appropriate.

One relative told us, “I was involved in the care plan, and we have two meetings a year to review it, but I can make comments whenever I want to, and I do. They always listen and are responsive”.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

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. People’s needs were assessed with them and, where appropriate, their families or representatives. Staff used nationally recognised tools to assess risks and inform care planning. The service made timely and appropriate referrals for specialist support, including GPs and the speech and language therapy (SALT) team, and ensured that professional advice was documented and followed. Staff demonstrated understanding of supporting people with modified diets. Kitchen staff ensured that modified meals were presented in a dignified and visually appealing manner, promoting both safety and quality of life.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

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. Staff collaborated well with healthcare professionals and other services, and changes to people’s circumstances or ways to improve care were discussed during handovers at each shift change. Feedback from healthcare professionals confirmed that the home communicated in a timely manner and staff provided clear and accurate information when required. The registered manager maintained strong oversight of people’s care needs and how staff worked with other services to ensure these were met effectively. This included coordination during transitions, such as hospital admissions or discharges, to promote continuity and safety.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

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.

Staff monitored people closely and acted promptly when additional medical input was required, such as after a fall. One person told us, I have my hearing checked, can see a doctor when I need to, the chiropodist comes in, she is very good. Yes,[I’m] looked after”.

People were encouraged to maintain good hydration and food intake. Those requiring modified diets were provided with them, and most people spoke positively about the variety and quality of meals offered. These practices supported people’s overall health and wellbeing in a safe and dignified way.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

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.

When people moved into the home, their needs, choices, and preferences were assessed using evidence-based tools. Staff and the management team carried out regular reviews of care plans to ensure they remained accurate, current, and reflective of each person’s evolving needs and preferences. Staff reported that they monitored people’s health and wellbeing through direct observations and GP reviews. This enabled them to respond promptly to any changes and support positive outcomes. They were also attentive to various forms of communication, including non-verbal cues and body language. The registered manager and staff consistently monitored the quality of care and treatment provided, aiming to maintain and enhance it wherever possible. They worked collaboratively to apply effective methods for tracking care delivery and outcomes, ensuring that people consistently experienced positive results.

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

The registered manager collaborated with people, staff, and relevant parties to uphold people’s rights regarding consent, ensuring care and treatment remained person-centred. Care plans included clear documentation of each person’s capacity and the level of support required to make informed decisions. Where support was required, decisions were made in the person’s best interests, involving appropriate professionals and representatives. There was documented evidence of Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) assessments being completed for specific decisions, such as residency at the service. Where best interest meetings were necessary, these were recorded and incorporated into the person’s care plan, for example for decisions around covert medication and use of sensor mats.