• Care Home
  • Care home

Meadowview Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Finlay Avenue, Penketh, Warrington, Cheshire, WA5 2PN (01925) 791180

Provided and run by:
Ashberry Healthcare Limited

Important: We have edited the inspection report for Meadowview Care Home from 30 January 2019 in order to remove some text which should not have been included in this report. This has not affected the rating given to this service.

Report from 1 October 2024 assessment

On this page

Effective

Good

Updated 9 January 2025

Family members felt involved in their relatives' care, participating in reviews and best interest decisions. Staff updated care plans monthly, but plans sometimes lacked details, such as guidance for non-verbal communication or managing specific health conditions. Pre-admission assessments included families and professionals, ensuring thorough evaluations. However, inconsistencies in dietary information and limited specialised training for conditions like diabetes highlighted gaps in care. Staff worked well as a team, with daily handovers and meetings supporting communication. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings effectively engaged external professionals, allowing for regular reviews of people’s care needs and the sharing of necessary information. People were encouraged to stay active and maintain healthy lifestyles through activities and balanced diets. Families were reassured by staff’s quick responses to health concerns, but some care interventions, like repositioning, were not always completed on time. Staff consistently sought consent and understood the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

While family members indicated they had not reviewed care plans, they told us they were involved in the review of care for their relatives and participated in best interest decision meetings when applicable.

Staff informed us team leaders were responsible for writing care plans, which were reviewed monthly. They explained the process involved gathering information and including people and their families where needed, in their development.

Processes were in place to assess people’s needs prior to admission, involving family members and other professionals in the pre-admission assessment, where needed. While risk assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly, they were not always reflective of individuals' needs and associated risks. For example, communication care plans sometimes lacked guidance on how to effectively communicate with individuals who were non-verbal.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 2

Families reported staff regularly discussed their relatives' health needs and any changes with them. People and their families expressed no concerns about the care being provided.

Staff we spoke with stated care plans were reviewed monthly, and care was delivered accordingly. Mealtimes provided opportunities for staff to engage with people while ensuring meals were served appropriately. Although kitchen staff had access to dietary information, such as the need for thickened fluids and soft diets, discrepancies were noted between this information and care plan documentation. These practices were addressed by the registered manager during the assessment.

There was a lack of specific risk assessments and care plans for individual health conditions, which meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to manage impact on people. Specialised training had not been completed by all staff. For instance, only two staff members had completed diabetes training. While not mandatory, this poses a risk staff may lack the necessary knowledge to provide appropriate care for people who were living with diabetes.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

People felt staff worked well together as a team to ensure their wellbeing.

Staff explained how the team collaborated daily to support people, and ensure their duties for the day were completed. A daily allocation sheet was used to fairly distribute responsibilities among the team.

Partner agencies told us they actively participated in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings with the provider and engagement was positive.

Care records showed evidence of multidisciplinary meetings involving people, families, staff, and external professionals. Daily meetings with department heads and handovers between shifts ensured information and risks were communicated. However, communication between teams, particularly between the kitchen and management regarding dietary updates, was sometimes unclear. In response, the registered manager introduced a new process to review people on specific diets.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

People told us they were supported by staff to access health services or appointments when needed. Some family members told us that staff promoted health and wellbeing of their relatives by encouraging activities of their choice and offering healthy snack options, such as fruit.

Staff provided examples of how the provider promoted healthier living for people, such as offering chair exercises in the morning and providing healthy snacks like fruit. For individuals with diabetes, kitchen staff explained they followed dietary advice from diabetic nurses, for example about portion sizes or desserts that should be offered.

Care records showed people had regular access to dentists, opticians, and GPs. Additionally, keep fit and chair fitness sessions were scheduled weekly. However, care plans and risk assessments did not always provide detailed information about individuals' health needs or clear guidance for staff on how to manage them.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

Families we spoke with told us staff always took appropriate action if their relatives were unwell for example, calling the GP or ambulance.

Staff provided examples of how they supported people to improve their health, wellbeing, and quality of life, including offering a balanced diet, and promoting mobility by supporting people to walk around.

A 'resident of the day' process was in place, where 2 people’s records were reviewed daily, with updates to care plans and risk assessments. However, the effectiveness of this system was unclear, as some actions from the care plan audits had not been completed. There was evidence care plans were not always followed, such as repositioning for one person not being completed timely, which increased the risk of developing pressure ulcers.

People said they were always asked for consent with all matters regarding to care.

Staff informed us they always sought people’s consent before providing care or support. For example, one staff member explained, “Giving medication, I ask ‘am I okay to give it' or ‘are you ready for your medication now’ I go away and come back if they say no’.” Staff were knowledgeable about what actions to take if someone refused care. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were able to identify which residents were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

There were established processes to assess people's capacity to make decisions. When required, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were applied in the person’s best interests, with involvement from family members and relevant professionals. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS.