CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Meadow Bank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, with one incident where procedures were not fully followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The home cared for 73 people at the time.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. Policies were updated when national guidance changed.
People and their relatives were supported to keep in touch through visits in a pod, window visits, video calls and telephone calls. Inspectors also found enough protective equipment, trained staff using it correctly, and enhanced cleaning arrangements.
The overall service and Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care.
Updated infection policies
The home had detailed COVID-19 policies and updated them when national guidance changed.
“The policies and procedures were updated regularly following any changes in national guidance.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
People and their relatives could use several ways to stay in contact during restrictions.
“People living in the home and their next of kin were supported to maintain contact through a range of methods including visit appointments in a 'pod', window visits, skype video and the telephone.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment and hand sanitiser. Staff had training and were seen using protective equipment correctly.
“Staff had received training on the use of PPE and we observed staff wearing it correctly during out inspection.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Each unit had a dedicated housekeeper, with enhanced cleaning and decontamination procedures.
“Each unit where people were accommodated had a dedicated housekeeper and enhanced cleaning regimes and decontamination procedures were implemented.” from the report
One screening procedure was not fully followed
minorThe report records a recent incident where infection control procedures were not followed fully. The home took immediate action and reinforced its policies and procedures.
“A recent incident where procedures had not been followed fully, resulted in immediate action by home and reinforcement of the policy and procedures.” from the report
- 01What happened in the recent incident where screening procedures were not fully followed?
- 02What action was taken after that incident, and how do you check that the reinforced procedures are now followed?
- 03How are people, staff and visitors currently screened and tested before entering or being admitted to the home?
- 04How can relatives currently visit or keep in contact with someone living in the home?
- 05How often are the infection prevention and control policies reviewed and updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the overall service was inspected but not rated, and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 2021 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, April 2018
Meadow Bank Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concerns about staffing response and recording covert medicines.
Inspectors visited on 5, 6 and 7 March 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and health professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines practices, good care planning and respectful support. People were involved in decisions about their care and had opportunities for activities, visitors and feedback.
There were some areas to improve. Some people and relatives felt staff could be slow to answer call bells. Records about decisions to give some medicines covertly were not clear enough. Some newer staff were also said to spend less time talking with people.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with the right mix of skills. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely.
“Rotas showed that there were always enough competent staff on duty who had the right mix of skills” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's life histories, preferences and goals. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“The manager and staff worked hard to understand people's backgrounds, preferences to care and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People were involved in decisions and staff protected their privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed positive staff interaction and people were seen to be comfortable, content and happy in staff presence.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used audits, surveys and meetings to identify issues and make improvements.
“We found the manager had an extensive system to assess the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Call bell response
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt there were not enough staff or that staff were slow to respond to call bells. Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient, but this feedback is worth checking with the home.
“Some said that they thought there weren't enough staff on duty, and others thought that the staff were slow to respond to call bells.” from the report
Covert medicines records
needs fixingThe process for deciding whether some people should receive medicines without knowing was followed, but the records did not clearly show who took part in the decisions.
“Although the records showed that the proper decision making process had been followed, we found some of the information was disjointed” from the report
Time for conversation
minorSome people felt newer staff focused on tasks and did not spend enough time chatting. The manager said training and supervision would address this.
“some of the newer staff could be encouraged to "chat and talk about their day a little more” from the report
- 01How quickly do staff normally respond to call bells, and how do you monitor delays?
- 02How are decisions about giving medicines covertly recorded, including who attends the best interests meeting?
- 03What training and supervision are newer staff given to help them spend time talking with residents?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of the manager's registration?
- 05What changes were made after the disorganised lunchtime observed during the inspection?
This was a full inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it was the first inspection since the ownership change in December 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 2018 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 Meadow Bank Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2017.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.