CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadow Court Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that Meadow Court Residential Home had safe infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. It checked infection prevention and control arrangements in response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, training had been completed, and rooms and shared areas were visibly clean and hygienic.
The home had a visitor pod, safe arrangements for admitting new people, and access to testing. Inspectors were assured about infection control, but the service was not given an overall quality rating.
PPE and staff training
Staff used PPE correctly and had completed training on safe COVID-19 practices.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. There were hand sanitising points and PPE available throughout the service” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home's rooms and shared areas visibly clean and hygienic.
“People's rooms and communal areas were visibly clean and hygienic.” from the report
Safer visiting
A separate visitor pod allowed people to see relatives while being separated by glass.
“This allowed people to safely see their relatives.” from the report
Safe admissions
The admission process included a virtual assessment, a COVID-19 test before arrival and sanitising personal belongings.
“This incorporated a virtual pre-admission assessment, a COVID-19 test before arriving at the service and the persons personal belongings were sanitised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you using the visitor pod now, and what visiting arrangements are currently available?
- 02What infection prevention and control training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 03How are people moving into the home tested, and how are their belongings handled before or on arrival?
- 04How do you access testing for people living here and for staff?
- 05What is the current process for preventing or managing an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, well-managed care, but some medicines were not always managed safely.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 6 December 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff, the owners and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, respected and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, good training, varied food and access to healthcare.
There were some areas to improve. A few cream and eye drop records did not show when medicines had been opened, and thickener was not always stored securely. Inspectors also found that some care plans needed more information about end of life wishes and that one staff member did not always have time to read care plans.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that staff understood people's preferences and communication. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“staff were kind and caring and people were treated with respect.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found sufficient staff on duty and thorough recruitment checks. The previous recruitment breach had been removed.
“Recruitment practices were of good quality and checks were made to ensure suitable people were employed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food and drink, with choice and variety. The home arranged access to a range of healthcare professionals.
“People had choice and access to sufficient food and drink throughout the day.” from the report
Management and improvement
The provider and manager were visible and used audits and feedback to improve the home. They responded promptly to the issues raised during the inspection.
“The registered manager was responsive to our inspection and was keen to further develop and improve the home.” from the report
Medicine records and storage
seriousSome cream and eye drop medicines did not have opening dates recorded. Thickener was not always kept securely after use. The provider was given a recommendation to review medicine guidance and update practice.
“People's prescribed cream and eye drop medicines were not always safely managed.” from the report
Time to read care plans
needs fixingCare plans were generally detailed, but one staff member said they did not always have time to read them. Ask how the home makes sure staff know each person's current needs.
“I ask the person directly as I do not always have the time to read care plans.” from the report
End of life information
needs fixingOne care plan had specific end of life wishes, but other plans had limited information. The manager was working to gather more person-centred details.
“However, other care plans contained limited information. The registered manager was aware of this and was working towards respectfully gathering information” from the report
Accessible information
minorThe home followed the Accessible Information Standard in some areas, but the manager said further review was needed to identify any additional measures.
“The registered manager told us they would review AIS guidance and ensure any additional measures required were put in place.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the opening dates of creams and eye drops?
- 02How do you store thickener securely after a person has finished using it?
- 03How do you make sure staff have time to read and follow each person's care plan?
- 04How are residents' end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
- 05What additional communication support was identified after the review of Accessible Information Standard guidance?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including both the premises and the care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2019 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 Court Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Meadow Court Residential Home →
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Meadow Court Residential Home →
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.