CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brendoncare Meadway
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and people's individual risks. However, medicines were not always managed safely because some fridge and room temperature records were missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained, and health professionals were involved when needed. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and could decide how to spend their day.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise concerns through meetings or the complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and professionals spoke positively about the home's culture and leadership. Audits, feedback and lessons from incidents were used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines storage records were not always complete.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 January 2023. One inspector spoke with four people, six relatives, six staff members and four health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and care was kind and respectful. Inspectors also found good infection control, suitable staffing and strong links with health professionals.
There was one shortfall. Fridge and room temperature checks for medicines were not always recorded, so safe storage could not be guaranteed. The provider took immediate action during the inspection, and CQC made a recommendation rather than recording a breach.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home consistently met people's needs and was well managed at the time of the visit. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 28 September 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and their privacy was considered.
“Our observations of staff interactions with people showed that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to prevent and manage infection. People, relatives and professionals praised the response during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices.
“Care plans and risk assessments were person centred. People and relatives told us staff knew them well.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about the home. Management used meetings, audits and feedback to improve care.
“People, their relatives, professionals and staff gave us positive feedback about the care provided at Brendoncare Meadway.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People, relatives and staff described mealtimes as a strong part of the home. Staff knew people's dietary needs and preferences and offered alternatives.
“Feedback from people, their relatives and staff consistently identified the mealtime experience at Brendoncare Meadway as a highlight of the home.” from the report
Medicine storage records
needs fixingFridge and room temperature checks were not always recorded. This meant safe storage of medicines could not be guaranteed, although the provider acted during the inspection.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. There were gaps in fridge and room temperature recordings, so safe storage could not be guaranteed.” from the report
- 01What changes were made during and after the inspection to ensure fridge and room temperatures for medicines are recorded every time?
- 02How do you check that the medicines policy is being followed now?
- 03How are people's medicines assessed and reviewed when they manage them independently?
- 04How are people's views, including those who do not attend group meetings, included in decisions about the home?
- 05How will staffing levels change when all bedrooms are occupied?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; inspectors reviewed two people's care records and two medicine administration records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-organised infection controls and plans to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 older people. All 13 places were occupied when inspectors visited.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks well. They found suitable testing, vaccination checks, protective equipment, cleaning, visiting procedures and plans for staff shortages.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from catching or spreading infections. The home also had enhanced cleaning arrangements for frequently touched areas.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Clear visiting procedures
The home had detailed guidance for essential care givers and information about visitors' responsibilities.
“There were detailed protocols for essential care givers which included a home induction checklist.” from the report
Staffing plans
The provider had plans to reduce the effect of COVID-19 staff pressures, including using bank staff rather than agency staff.
“The provider had workforce planning measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19 related staff pressures.” from the report
Support for communication
Staff obtained face masks with a clear window so a person who was hard of hearing could lip read.
“Staff had sourced face masks which had a clear window across the mouth to help one person, who was hard of hearing, lip read” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently prevent visitors, staff and residents from catching or spreading infections?
- 02What are your current arrangements for testing, protective equipment and visiting?
- 03How would you maintain staffing if several staff members were unavailable?
- 04How do you support residents who have difficulty hearing or communicating when staff are wearing face masks?
- 05What information can you provide about care quality areas that were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Brendoncare Meadway
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.