Meadowview Care Home

Updated 29 March 2019

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.

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 February 2019 and was unannounced. The inspection team on the first day of the inspection was made up of an inspection manager, an adult social care 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. The second day of the inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection the provider completed a provider information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

To help us plan our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included the inspection report from our last inspection in March 2017 and statutory notifications that had been sent to us. A statutory notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send to us by law.

Before the inspection visit we contacted the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams about the service to gather relevant information. The commissioning team had reported significant improvements to the service in the last six months. We also contacted Healthwatch Rochdale. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Healthwatch shared information from a relative who had concerns about their relative’s care.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service, two managers, two staff members, one cook, an activity coordinator, six visiting relatives and three visiting professionals.

We undertook a Short Observation Framework for Inspection (SOFI) observation. A SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who are not able to talk with us.

We looked at records relating to the management of the service. This included policies and procedures, incident and accident records, safeguarding records, complaint records, four staff recruitment files, training and supervision records, five care plans, team meeting minutes, satisfaction surveys and a range of auditing tools and systems and other documents related to the management and safety of the service.

Updated 29 March 2019

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 February 2019 and was unannounced.

At the last comprehensive inspection of the service in March 2017 the service was rated good.

Meadow View Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Meadow View Care Home is registered to provide care for up to 39 people, with accommodation in single or shared bedrooms over two floors. It is situated in the Castleton area of Rochdale, Greater Manchester. At the time of the inspection there were 37 people living in the home.

There was no registered manager in post. 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. The current manager is in the process of applying to be the registered manager.

At this inspection we identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This breach was for fire safety. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We also made two recommendations to support further improvement. We have made a recommendation about how decision making is recorded for people who lack capacity for specific decisions. We have made a recommendation regarding improvements required in relation to the Equality Act 2010.

Systems were in place to monitor the safety of equipment and required checks were up to date, including gas and electric safety checks.

Systems were in place to ensure sufficient numbers of staff were provided and people reported feeling safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and risks to people's safety were assessed with guidance on how to minimise the risks. The service had a whistleblowing policy and staff reported feeling able to report poor practice if required.

Risks to people's safety were assessed with guidance on how to minimise these risks. Accidents and incidents were recorded and risk assessments were updated in response if required.

The home was clean and staff had received training and understood their infection control responsibilities. There was a business continuity plan in place to help staff respond appropriately to any emergencies that could arise.

People’s needs were assessed before admission and a support plan was put in place to meet these needs. This was reviewed and updated monthly. The service worked closely with other agencies to provide the care that people needed.

Positive feedback about the care staff and the standard of care was received during the inspection from three health care professionals. The local council had also reported improvements to the service within the past three months.

The premises were adapted appropriately for the people who lived there. It was dementia friendly and practice in this area was excellent. The home environment was tailored to support people’s safety, independence and well-being.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and adhered to. The lunch time experience needed to be more person centred and communication of people’ specific dietary requirements needed to improve.

Relevant authorisations were in place where people were being deprived of their liberty. Care records show that capacity and consent had been considered when planning people’s care and support.

Staff felt supported and were provided with an induction to prepare them for the role and regular training was provided to support care staff to meet the needs of people effectively.

Staff interactions were kind, caring and respectful. People’s dignity and privacy was respected. Independent advocacy was promoted to help safeguard people’s rights.

Care planning did not fully consider the Equality Act 2010. Confidentiality and data protection was covered by the induction and staff training.

Care files were person-centred and included information about people’s likes and dislikes.

There had been some negative feedback about the activities available to people in the home. A new activities coordinator was in post and was supporting people to pursue their individual interests and plans were in place to improve access to the local community.

The accessible information standard was met. People were routinely assessed to ascertain what their communication preferences or abilities were.

There was an appropriate complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us they knew how to complain.

The home had an end of life policy that provided guidance to staff and the home actively involved family as much as possible.

The management team were committed and hands on. Staff, relatives and health and Social care professionals reported an open culture. Staff supervisions, team meetings and handovers were held regularly and staff reported feeling supported in their roles.

There was a positive impact from the new manager and the home was moving in the right direction.