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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff knew people well and were responsive to people’s changing needs. However, the records did not always reflect people’s preferences and wishes or demonstrate how people and their families had been involved in decisions about the care people received.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported to access the local services they needed. The registered manager told us they had links with local community groups and schools. At the time of assessment there was only one worker to support activities and wellbeing making it difficult for people to have full access to their local community.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager and staff understood how to effectively communicate with the people they were supporting. The provider was able to adapt information where needed to meet people’s specific needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Systems were in place to enable people and families to be involved in service development through meetings and surveys. However, surveys were often generic and failed to elicit information the service could use to drive improvement.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they were supported to access the care they needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. We noted the experience of people who were cared for in bed or struggled to engage in structured activities were less likely to receive interactions and support to engage in activities.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People who were receiving end of life care and support did not have personalised care plans which detailed how they wanted to be supported. We observed staff worked closely with district nurse and other health care professionals to ensure people’s comfort was maintained as they approached the end of their life. The provider acknowledged further work was needed to ensure people and families were supported to plan for the future in a personalised way.