You are here

Generals Meadow Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2019

About the service

Generals Meadow is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 16 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 19 people in one large adapted building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had not been consistently assessed and there was not always guidance for staff to mitigate risks. Improvements had been made to the service to keep people safe such as a new fire alarm.

Each person had a care plan, these did not always have detailed information about people’s choices and preferences. However, people told us and we observed, people being supported in the way they preferred.

Medicines were not always managed safely. Checks and audits were completed on the quality of the service but had not identified the shortfalls found at this inspection. Accidents and incidents had been recorded and analysed to identify patterns and trends. Action had been taken to reduce the risk of them happening again and this had been effective.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to develop their own care and end of life plans, and where possible were supported to write their own plan. Staff worked with the GP and district nurses to support people at the end of their lives.

Staff had been recruited safely and there enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received training and supervision to develop their skills.

People visited the service and met with staff before they moved into the service to check that staff would be able to meet their needs. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to be as independent as possible and express their opinions about the service.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet, people told us they had a choice of meals. People’s health was monitored, and action taken when people’s needs changed. People were referred to healthcare professionals when their needs changed.

People and relatives told us they knew how to complain; any complaints had been investigated and action taken to resolve the issues. People were given information in a way they could understand. People had access to activities they enjoyed and were supported to go on trips.

The registered managers kept up to date with developments and worked to continuously improve the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 8 December 2016). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider of the service has changed. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the registration date of the new provider.


We have identified a breach in relation to the governance of the service at this inspection.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 15 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 15 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 15 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.