Archived: Meadowfield

Updated 15 June 2018

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 was a comprehensive inspection and was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

This inspection took place on 24 May2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in when we visited.

Before the inspection we reviewed other information we held about the service and the provider. This included statutory notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are reports about changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send to CQC within required timescales. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also contacted the local Healthwatch, the local authority commissioners for the service, the local authority safeguarding team, the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and healthcare professionals. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Their feedback is included within the body of this report.

During our inspection we spoke with all five people who lived at Meadowfield. We spoke with the registered manager and two support workers.

We looked around the home and viewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included the care records of two people, including their medicine administration records (MAR). We reviewed two staff recruitment files, training records, and records in relation to the management of the service. We observed how staff interacted with people who lived in the home.

Updated 15 June 2018

Meadowfield is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home provides accommodation for up to five people with mental health needs or a learning disability. On the day of our inspection there were five people using the service.

The home is a house that has been adapted to meet the needs of the people living there. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Meadowfield was last inspected by CQC in April 2017 when the service was rated as Requires Improvement. We had found that systems relating to service user finances had been improved and there was now a registered manager in post. At this visit we saw improvements had been made and the service was meeting all regulations at this time.

People told us they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. We found that this was a consistent staff team who knew people well.

People received safe support with their medicines. Where people wished to manage their own medicines independently this was encouraged and there were checks in place to ensure it was carried out safely.

People had risk assessments that described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care records we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary, for example: their GP and social worker.

The premises were homely, maintained in good order and suitable for people's needs.

Staff told us they felt well supported in their role; they received induction and training. Staff received regular supervision sessions and an annual appraisal.

People had choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us their privacy and dignity was very well respected and that people’s religious and cultural needs were also valued by the staff team.

Staff were aware of the importance of supporting people with good nutrition and hydration. We saw that people were encouraged to shop for and prepare their own meals.

People had access to healthcare services to promote their physical and mental health. We saw that people were supported to have annual health checks and to attend health screening appointments.

There were detailed, person-centred care plans in place, so that staff had information on how to support people. ‘Person-centred’ is about ensuring the person is at the centre of everything and their individual wishes, needs, and choices are taken into account.

People were able to take part in a range of activities of their choosing and which were meaningful to them. People were supported to look for paid employment, volunteering roles and training to support them to develop the skills for employment. People were supported to play an active role in their local community, which supported and empowered their independence.

There was a complaints procedure in place, should anyone wish to raise a complaint. People told us that any issues would be addressed but no one raised any concerns with us. Staff knew how to access advocacy services if people needed them.

There was a quality assurance system, which enabled the provider to monitor the quality of the service provided.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager, staff and the service as a whole. Comments from people, staff and visiting healthcare professionals indicated there was a positive, person centred culture within the service.