Meade Close

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records were personalised and contained enough information, to guide staff about people’s needs and preferences. Relatives told us staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. One relative told us, “I think [person] is in the best place, with people that understand their needs. A visiting healthcare professional also said, “Some of the carers are very caring and person centred."

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Some staff had a good understanding of people needs and had developed good professional relationships.A visiting healthcare professional told us, “There have been many challenges along the way as [person] has very complex needs. I have always found the staff helpful.”

Staff encouraged and supported people to take part in activities and opportunities within the local and wider community. Records showed these included; visits to Manchester City Centre, trips to the local park and cafes, theatre shows and the market.

The provider supplied information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standards. Most people living at Meade Close were non-verbal and expressed their needs and wishes in different ways. Records were provided in different formats and with the use of pictures.

Detailed plans were also in place detailing the communication support people needed. We saw one person used a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button to communicate their preferences. We were told there were future plans to introduce a communication board.

The provider made it easy for people’s relatives to give feedback or make complaints about the care and support provided.

Some relatives spoke about their involvement in care planning and being kept informed about their relative’s well-being by individual staff members. One person said, “They also ring and update family.” Others felt communication could be improved. Senior managers told us new plans had been introduced to help improve communication with people’s relatives. We were told people’s relatives had been given a key contact within the management team who they could liaise with. One relative told us, “[Manager] is very good, polite”. Adding, they had been contacted with updates about their family members health and well-being.

People’s relatives said they felt able to raise concerns should they need to. Comments received included, “I would feel able to raise concerns if I had any. I’ve made requests that have been acted on”, “Family feel they can raise concerns as they arise” and “I have had quite a lot of input with the new staff. I have also had a meeting with [management] to raise complaints, I feel these were taken on board."

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to suitable equipment which met their physical needs as well as promoting their mobility and safety.

People had access to necessary health care support and were supported to attend hospital or a medical appointment. Staff generally worked well with other services and knew how to refer people to support services they might need. Most of the relatives we spoke with felt their family member was well treated and supported. One relative told us, “Good at following things up, such as medication and appointments."

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff worked together to coordinate people’s care and support providing activities and opportunities both in and away from the home. Increased staffing levels were to be provided to help facilitate this.

Staff completed training around equality, diversity and human rights, and understood the importance of meeting people’s preference and promoting people’s choices and rights. Tools that make it easier for people to communicate and join in were available.

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.

As part of the care planning process people and their relatives were asked about their end-of-life wishes. Information showed some people had expressed how they wanted to be supported at the end of their life. Training in this area had not been provided. The provider may wish to consider providing this so staff develop the confidence and essential skills to support people and their families.