Meadowview Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Staff reported low morale, feeling unsupported and not listened to by management. Many were uncomfortable raising concerns and felt their feedback was not valued. While the provider’s vision emphasised compassion and integrity, these values were not consistently reflected, as audits and checks often missed key issues like care plan inaccuracies and unresolved safety concerns. Governance systems were not always effective or robust in monitoring the safety of the service and identifying areas for improvement. Opportunities to raise concerns existed, but staff were hesitant to use them, stating there was little action on feedback. Ongoing issues like damaged flooring, fire doors, and laundry problems remained unresolved despite being raised in meetings. Collaboration with health professionals and community engagement were strong, with external partners praising the service's coordination. However, some staff noted inconsistent support after incidents and a lack of reasonable adjustments for those who needed them. While some staff felt valued, others disagreed, highlighting an overall lack of a positive workplace culture.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most staff reported low morale, primarily due to management. One staff member expressed, “The culture is not great, can't speak up to the manager." Many staff felt they were not being listened to and managers did not know them or people well.

The provider's vision and values, including compassion, integrity, and loyalty, were documented and displayed in various formats such as in the Statement of Purpose and on the provider’s website. A handbook for employees was available which outlined staff expectations, and annual awards were given for upholding these core values. However, service failings were not always identified, documented, or addressed for improvement, for example, recruitment processes and environmental concerns.

Most staff did not feel supported and included. Staff stated they would welcome more interaction with the registered manager.

We identified a disparity between the staff and management team's perceptions of the culture, which meant poor cultural issues within the team were not recognised or addressed.

Staff did not feel there was a positive culture that encouraged them to speak up and be heard. They expressed feeling unsupported in making suggestions and believed their input was not valued. One staff member mentioned, " (We) don’t feel listened to and don’t get feedback."

Staff had the opportunity to raise concerns via an online form, though it was not always utilised, as some staff did not feel comfortable speaking up. The provider had clear whistleblowing procedures in place, displayed in the staff room. Staff reported limited opportunities to contribute to team meetings due to pre-set agendas. The registered manager told us they maintained an open-door policy, ensuring people, family members, and staff could seek support when needed. Following our visit, the director set up weekly team sessions in the home to support in addressing the issue of staff not feeling comfortable to speak up.

Some staff felt they were treated fairly, while others did not. The registered manager explained equality and diversity were promoted through initiatives such as the annual awards, employee of the month scheme, flexible working options, and ensuring equal pay and benefits.

The provider had policies and processes in place to protect and promote the rights of the whole staff team. However, reasonable adjustments, where needed, were not always considered.

Three of the staff members we spoke with felt that regular checks on safety and care standards, such as audits and daily walkarounds, were lacking. One staff member told us they had “not seen manager doing regular checks”, whilst another described audits as a ‘tick-box’ exercise. Although the January 2024 information report from the provider mentioned an ongoing improvement plan, the registered manager could not provide it when requested. Since the assessment, the provider has evidenced that there is an action plan and improvement plan in place for the home.

Governance systems were not always effective in monitoring the safety of the service or identifying areas for improvement. For example, issues identified in care plan audits were not always addressed in the care plans we reviewed. Daily walkarounds and spot checks conducted by team leaders and managers did not identify some of the concerns we found during our assessment. The provider implemented a ‘resident of the day’ system to review care plans, but this was not always accurately completed. For instance, one form incorrectly confirmed the presence of guidance for ‘when required’ medication for a person, when none was in place. This was rectified during our visit.

Feedback collated from people showed most people were encouraged and supported to engage with their local community.

Both care staff and the management team demonstrated effective collaboration with health professionals, including making referrals to district nurses, GPs, and pharmacies.

Partners told us the provider worked well with them and they had no concerns about the care of people. One professional shared they always meet with the deputy manager before seeing people to discuss any issues, ensuring information was cascaded and updated after each visit.

The provider had developed strong relationships with local schools who visited regularly, and other healthcare professionals such as GPs and dentists to ensure all people had access to community services.

Some staff reported receiving a debrief after incidents, while others did not. Although team meetings were held regularly, staff noted feedback provided during these meetings was not always acted upon.

There was no formal improvement or quality plan in place, despite the registered manager acknowledging the need for improvements. Limited progress was made on previous concerns, such as the incorrect use of slings, damaged flooring, and fire doors, which had been raised in meetings but were not addressed by the time of our visit. Ongoing issues with laundry, highlighted in resident meetings, also remained unresolved. Although no improvement plan could be provided at the time of assessment, the provider has since submitted further evidence which confirms there is an active improvement plan in place which the home are working towards.