CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meade Close
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and person-centred care needed improvement.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about leadership, safeguarding, medicines, staffing, and the safety of equipment and premises. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with a person, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. There were enough staff at the time of the inspection. People received kind care, medicines were generally managed safely, the home was clean, and staff understood safeguarding. However, some care records were not accurate or up to date, and thickener added to drinks was not always recorded.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Leadership and staffing arrangements were changing, and this affected the consistency and quality of care. The overall rating remained Good because the other two questions were not inspected at this visit and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff at inspection
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the visit. The home had processes for managing sickness and was recruiting additional senior staff.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate support, and inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions between staff and people. Staff protected privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were administered by competent staff, recorded appropriately and checked. Information went with people when they moved between care settings.
“The home ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were recorded appropriately, and stock monitored and checked regularly.” from the report
Clean and adapted home
The home was clean and hygienic, with adaptations to support people's physical needs. People could personalise their rooms.
“The service gave people care and support in a safe and clean environment that had been adapted to meet their physical needs.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingStaff were not always keeping care records accurate, complete and up to date. The home had an action plan to address this.
“Staff were not always keeping accurate, complete and up-to-date records.” from the report
Personalised support needed more work
needs fixingCare plans did not always focus clearly enough on people's independence, strengths, goals and aspirations. Not all staff had completed Positive Behaviour Support training.
“Care plans needed to focus more on promoting people's independence, their strengths and to reflect their goals and aspirations more clearly.” from the report
Leadership was still in transition
needs fixingThe management and senior staff team was being restructured. Inspectors said this had affected the quality and consistency of care, although people were not at risk of harm.
“These changes were still in transition and needed to be fully established and sustained.” from the report
Thickener was not always recorded
needs fixingStaff did not always record when thickener powder was added to drinks for people at risk of choking. The manager took immediate action.
“Staff were not always recording when thickener powder was added to drinks for people who were at risk of choking.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the management and senior staff team since the inspection, and how are you checking that these changes are now established?
- 02How do you make sure every person's care plan reflects their independence, strengths, goals and aspirations?
- 03Have all staff now completed Positive Behaviour Support training, and how is their competence checked?
- 04How do you check that care records are accurate, complete and up to date?
- 05How do you ensure staff record thickener added to drinks for people at risk of choking?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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, May 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home needed to improve how it recognises and responds to people becoming seriously unwell.
This was a focused inspection on 22 March 2023. One inspector reviewed records, spoke with managers and staff, and spoke with two people living at the home. The inspector also observed care and sought feedback from other professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. Staff had first aid and basic life support training, but there was no systematic approach for taking baseline physical observations when someone might be becoming unwell. The inspector recommended using RESTORE2, an early warning tool.
The home was rated Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff at the time of the visit, safe medicines systems, suitable safeguarding arrangements, and managers who were open to improvement. The overall rating stayed Good because the other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff at the visit
There were enough staff to meet people's needs when inspectors visited. Management had also taken steps to manage staff absences and reduce the need for agency workers.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found safe systems for prescribing, giving, recording and storing medicines. Staff also followed principles intended to avoid unnecessary medication for people with learning disabilities or autism.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Positive leadership
Managers were approachable and involved people, families and other professionals in developing the service. The report describes an open and honest approach to improvement.
“The provider and registered manager conducted business in an open, honest and transparent way.” from the report
People's independence and choices
The home supported people to have choice, control and independence. Staff communicated in ways that met people's needs and supported personalised living arrangements.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence be independent and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Recognising physical deterioration
needs fixingThe home did not have a systematic method for taking baseline physical observations, such as pulse or oxygen levels, when someone became acutely unwell. The provider was recommended to implement RESTORE2.
“We recommend implementation of RESTORE2 as a tool to assist in recognising health conditions likely to deteriorate.” from the report
Staff absence pressures
minorThe service had experienced several staff absences. Management had taken action to reduce the impact, but staffing pressures were still part of the inspection findings.
“The service had experienced a number of difficulties in relation to staff absences.” from the report
- 01Has RESTORE2 now been fully implemented, and have all relevant staff been trained to use it?
- 02What happens if someone becomes suddenly unwell, and how are physical observations recorded?
- 03How many staff vacancies or absences are there now, and how is continuity of care protected?
- 04How often are medicines reviewed, particularly medicines that could affect behaviour?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing and improving the service?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings from the previous inspection in 2019 were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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.
Every inspection of Meade Close
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2023GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Trafford
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.