The Meadowcroft Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This is the first inspection of this newly registered service and therefore we assessed all 6 quality statements from this key question. Based on the findings of this assessment, our rating for this key question is good. People's dependency needs were assessed before they were offered a place at the care home which staff used to develop personalised care plans. Staff worked together to deliver and meet people’s needs and wishes in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People were supported to stay healthy and well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The care and support people received was routinely monitored to continuously improve it.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff knew how to support them with known risks and that they were involved in planning the care they received.

Staff told us they assessed people’s needs which helped to identify their support needs and any areas of risk. One member of staff said, “Before anyone is allowed to move in the nurses always carry out a thorough assessment of their needs to see if we will be able to look after them properly here.”

People received care and support that was planned and delivered in line with their assessed needs and wishes. People's dependency needs were assessed before people were offered a place at the care home and these assessments were used to help develop people’s individualised care plans. People, their relatives and external health and social care representatives were all invited to participate in the pre-admission assessment process. Peoples care plans were reviewed monthly.

Peoples told us staff provided their family members with all the care and support they needed. A relative told us, “My [family member] is on a soft food diet and staff were aware when this changed from solids.”

Staff worked together to deliver and meet people’s needs and wishes in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff told us they followed guidance in care plans when supporting people. This included providing the appropriate level of support in line with guidance in relation to eating, drinking, and moving and handling.

The provider used a number of evidence-based care and support tools when assessing needs such as pain assessment tools, Barthel index for measure performance in activities of daily living, Crichton Behaviour Scale, The Eton Scale for the risk of constipation and Water low for assessing the risk in relation to pressure sores. In addition, people’s electronic care plans contained detailed person-centred information about how individuals preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes.

People using the service and their relatives told us they received joined up care from the provider working with the relevant health care professionals. They told us the nurses were a visible presence in the home and they were able to see a GP or other health professional if needed.

Managers and staff told us they worked closely with various external health and social care bodies and professionals and welcomed their views, advice, and best practice ideas.

The GP, community teams and the Local Authority provided positive feedback about the provider's proactive approach in engaging with them.

The provider worked in partnership with various community-based health and social care professionals and agencies including, GPs, community teams including nursing and the relevant Local Authorities. For example, regular clinical governance meetings had recently commenced with the local GP surgery.

People using the service told us they had access to relevant health care professionals as required such as GP services.

Staff told us GPs routinely visited the care home to review people’s health and medical needs and conditions. Staff received training in how to meet and appropriately manage people’s health care needs and conditions including, dysphagia, oral health, pain relief, skin integrity and sepsis. In addition, staff received emergency first aid training as part of their induction which was routinely refreshed.

People were supported to stay healthy and well. Care plans detailed their health care needs and conditions and the action staff needed to take to keep people fit and well. Staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular check-ups with a range of external, community-based medical and health care professionals including GPs, physio therapists, dentists and opticians.

People using the service and their relatives felt that all their care needs, including any clinical needs, were being met by the provider.

It was clear from feedback we received from managers and senior staff they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure they maintained high-quality, person-centred and safe care for people they supported at the home. The quality and safety of the service people received were routinely monitored by managers and nursing staff at both provider and service level by conducting regular audits and checks and obtaining stakeholder feedback. For example, managers and nursing staff met daily to discuss any changes to people’s needs and the packages of care they received and conduct walk-about tours of the premises to observe staffs working practices. This was also used as a spot audit and visual inspection of the premises.

The outcome of all the audits, monitoring checks and feedback the providers received from stakeholders were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided people. These quality assurance systems had indicators that identified how the service was performing, areas requiring improvement and areas where the service was achieving or exceeding targets. Key performance indicators included care plan reviews, satisfaction surveys and occurrences, such as accidents and incidents. However, some of the record keeping in relation to monitoring outcomes such as skin monitoring and fluid charts needed to improve.

People told us they consented to the care and support they received from staff at the service. A relative said, “Staff do obtain consent from the people they look after and always explain the care tasks they are about to do with people.”

Managers and staff confirmed they had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Acts (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff told us peoples care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves.

People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. For example, care plans clearly described what decisions people could make for themselves and those who needed some support. If people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the service would involve people’s relatives and professional representatives, to ensure decisions would be made in their best interests. Care plans were clear about Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA’s) and DoLS restrictions people were under which had been authorised by the supervising body (the local authority) and in their best interests. The plans also contained detailed information about the types of decisions that people could make for themselves and family members or friends that were involved in.