Meadowview Care Home

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

People and their families reported that care was personalised, with staff supporting individual preferences in activities, communication, and living spaces. Changing needs were monitored, with timely referrals to specialists such as Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and mobility experts. Collaboration with external agencies and regular multidisciplinary meetings helped ensure coordinated care. Information about activities and updates were shared through noticeboards, newsletters, and an online application, which enabled families to send updates and photos to their relatives. Families felt confident raising concerns, but the provider lacked proper documentation of complaints, and some issues were not formally addressed. Care plans were reviewed monthly, but for individuals lacking capacity, it was not always clear that family members were involved in the review process. While healthcare access was valued, discussions about future and end-of-life care were inconsistent, and staff had limited training in this area. However, families and people praised the care provided and appreciated the welcoming and supportive environment.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Family members shared staff knew their relatives well and allowed them to personalise their bedrooms to reflect their preferences. People stated they were regularly informed about upcoming activities and encouraged to participate in those of interest to them.

Staff explained people’s changing needs were regularly monitored, with appropriate referrals made to services like Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) or mobility specialists when needed. Staff told us they recognised the importance of getting to know people and involving their families, when needed, to provide care based on individual preferences, likes, and dislikes. One staff member shared person-centred care involved asking people what they would like to wear, for example. Some staff had completed person-centred care training.

We observed activities tailored to peoples' likes and dislikes. For example, a staff member played a specific song on the television knowing it would engage a person, who began singing along. This demonstrated staff understood people’s preferences and interests.

People and their families reported staff collaborated effectively with external agencies to ensure care needs were met.

Staff were able to explain the escalation process for incidents or changes in a person's health and could identify the appropriate services that would be contacted.

Professionals reported effective coordination with the provider to ensure seamless care for people. One professional explained visits were tailored to people’s needs, such as prioritising a visit sooner for somebody with a chest infection.

Care records showed care was effectively coordinated with other professionals, and decisions were shared. This included collaboration with the GP, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), and social services.

An internal resident survey indicated people felt the information provided about their care was presented in a way they could understand.

Staff shared examples of how they supported people’s communication needs, such as speaking with family members or offering two options at mealtimes for people to point to their preference. They noted information could be provided in large print or other languages, when needed, and advocates were used where required.

The provider displayed a variety of information on notice boards, including photographs of recent activities and timetables for upcoming events. Positive initiatives were in place to provide information, such as newsletters and the ability for families to regularly share written stories and photos with their relatives.

Families told us they felt confident raising concerns with the registered manager, and their concerns were always addressed appropriately. A recent relatives' meeting noted a request for fruit to be offered, and one family member confirmed this request had been implemented.

Staff were aware of the actions they should take in response to a complaint. For example, when a person expressed dissatisfaction with their room, they were offered another one. The registered manager informed us that only formal complaints were recorded and investigated, rather than all concerns being documented.

Surveys, resident meetings, and staff meetings provided opportunities for people to share their ideas, concerns, or feedback. However, the provider did not always follow the complaints, suggestions, and compliments policy. There was no complaints log or written evidence to demonstrate all complaints were fully investigated.

People and their families told us they had access to other healthcare professionals whenever support or treatment was needed.

Staff told us they worked collaboratively to ensure people received support when needed. One staff member mentioned team leaders stepped in to provide assistance if required.

Healthcare professionals reported visiting the home regularly to review people. They stated the provider ensured follow-ups were completed and any necessary changes to peoples' care were implemented.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held every six months, involving healthcare professionals and the GP. During these meetings, each person was discussed and reviewed, with actions implemented as needed. This process ensured regular and comprehensive reviews of every person's care. Care plans reflected changes made by professionals, such as adjustments to medications by the GP.

People and their families believed they were treated fairly and had access to appropriate care and support tailored to their needs.

Staff were not aware of any instances of discrimination within the service, and some staff members felt valued in their roles.

The 'resident of the day' process provided an opportunity for individuals to share their opinions, discuss preferences with staff, and contribute to their care plans. However, for people who lacked the mental capacity, there was not always clear evidence their families had been consulted or involved in the care review process.

Some people felt they were supported to plan for their future and future care, while others were unsure.

Some staff did not fully understand the importance of supporting people to plan for their future, including end-of-life care. One staff member stated, "End of life care is just as they get ill," which meant people did not have sufficient time to express their wishes and preferences.

End-of-life care was supported through documented plans, including decisions around resuscitation for some people, funeral preferences, and religious wishes. However, staff had not received end-of-life care training to ensure compassionate and respectful support.