Meadowview Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a sufficiently proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always evidence that concerns about safety were investigated and that action had been taken. Records did not demonstrate that lessons were continually identifying and embedding of good practice. For example, records of accidents and falls lacked sufficient detail to enable a full understanding of what happened and how this risk could be reduced. There had been some delays in ensuring care plans were reviewed in a timely way due to changes in systems following an incident. However, appropriate medical attention was sought following any incidents and many people had equipment in place to reduce risk.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Regular visits from health professionals were arranged, including doctors and opticians and people told us they were supported to access the services they needed in a timely way.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people, suitable policies were in place and people felt safe.

The service did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. They did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. How individual needs and risks were managed were not always clearly and consistently documented in care records. Documentation around incidents and risk were not always sufficiently detailed to aid analysis of risk, for example in relation to falls. Daily records lacked detail to show that risks were being managed in line with their assessments and care plans. For example, information in relation to dietary needs or repositioning lacked detail to demonstrate how care had been provided. However, there was a consistent staff team who knew people well. The provider was implementing a new care planning system to ease the care planning and recording processes, which will be reviewed when we next assess the service. We identified some areas of potential risk which may have affected people living with dementia around storage of thickening powders. However, this was immediately addressed.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. A number of areas of the home needed redecorating and a programme of redecoration was in progress. We discussed the importance of ensuring this was implemented in line with best practice to ensure it was suitable for people living with dementia. Checks and servicing of utilities and equipment were in place, but limited storage meant that escape routes were not always kept clear of equipment. Any shortfalls found were immediately addressed by the service.

The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. We found some shortfalls in training compliance, although the registered manager took immediate steps to address these shortfalls with staff. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager but there was limited records of formal supervisions and appraisals. Safe recruitment processes were followed but records were not always consistently completed and maintained. Staff were busy and told us that whilst they worked well as a team, there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. The management team told us this was mainly due to staff sickness. People generally felt there were enough staff and that they were supported in a timely way.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The home was clean and tidy and domestic staff worked hard to keep on top of the cleaning

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always involve people in planning. Records did not always highlight people who had medicines that needed to be given at a specific time or in a specific way. However, people were receiving the medicines they needed as prescribed. Medicines that people needed occasionally, such as paracetamol for pain, lacked guidance for staff on when to give these medicines or at what dose. However, there was a consistent team of staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines. They knew people well and provided support with medicines in a kind and person-centred way. The medicine trolley was not always suitably stored.