Archived: Meadowbank Care

Updated 23 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 March 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) for the service and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about a service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed notifications and other information about the service we had received since the last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We contacted five healthcare professionals, for example, GPs, to seek their views about people’s care. We spoke with 12 people who lived in Meadowbank Care and also to three family relatives and friends of people who lived in Meadowbank Care who were visiting the service.

Some people were unable to tell us about their experiences of living at Meadowbank Care because of their dementia. We carried out observations over lunch to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the registered manager and seven staff members.

We checked records about how people’s care was provided. These included six people’s care plans, medicines records, four staff files containing recruitment checks and details of induction for new staff and supervision and training spread-sheets for all staff.

Updated 23 April 2016

This inspection took place on the 17 March 2016 and was unannounced.

At our last comprehensive inspection of 18 April 2013 we found the service was not meeting the requirements of the regulations in place at the time in respect of safe staff recruitment. We followed this up at an inspection on the 31 July 2013 and found there were still issues outstanding with staff recruitment practice. We took compliance action and the provider submitted an action plan to address this in September 2013. We carried out a further inspection in February 2014 to check if appropriate action had been taken. We found the provider had made the necessary improvements and that the service met the requirements of the regulations in respect of staff recruitment.

Meadowbank Care is registered to provide care for up to twenty two older people, some of whom may live with dementia. Eighteen people were being cared for at the time of our visit.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

We received consistently positive feedback about the service. “The standard of care is excellent” and “Absolutely excellent” were some of the comments made to us by people who lived in Meadowbank or their relatives. The only issues of concern expressed were in respect of the timing of the evening meal and bed time which were thought to be too early for some people and the frequency of activities outside of the home.

There were safeguarding procedures in place and staff received training on safeguarding vulnerable people. This meant staff had the skills and knowledge to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people were identified and managed well at the service so that people could be as independent as possible. A range of detailed risk assessments were in place to reduce the likelihood of injury or harm to people during the provision of their care.

We found set staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs effectively. The commitment and team work of staff meant people were kept safe and ensured their needs were met appropriately.

Staff had been subject to a robust recruitment process. This made sure people were supported by staff that were suitable to work with them.

Staff received appropriate support through structured induction and supervision. Although formal supervision was only approximately two to three monthly, all the staff we spoke with said they felt able to speak with the registered manager or senior staff at any time they needed to. There were also regular team meetings held to discuss issues and to support staff.

We looked at records of training for all staff. We found there was an on-going training programme to ensure staff gained and maintained the skills they required to ensure safe ways of working.

Care plans were in place to document people's needs and their preferences for how they wished to be supported. These were up to date and subject to review to take account of changes in people's needs over time.

Medicines were administered in line with safe practice. Staff who assisted people with their medicines received appropriate training to enable them to do so safely.

The service was managed effectively. The provider regularly checked quality of care at the service through audits and by giving people the opportunity to comment the service they received and/or observed.