CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadow Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the Effective rating Requires Improvement because mental capacity checks were not always completed.
Inspectors carried out a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 1 February 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care, checked care plans, staff records, medicines systems and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, kind relationships, personalised care, activities and systems for handling complaints and improving the service.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that mental capacity was not always assessed when people could not make decisions for themselves. Some restrictions had not been considered through best-interest decisions or included in applications under the Mental Capacity Act.
The overall rating stayed Good and the report found no serious risks or concerns. However, the provider was recommended to improve its mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Staffing was planned around individual needs and staff had assigned roles on each shift.
“There were enough staff to ensure that people's needs were met safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in everyday choices and encouraged to remain independent.
“People had caring, kind, supportive relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, interests and changing needs. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could join activities such as games, quizzes, exercises, film days, singing and trips. There was no pressure to take part.
“We do all sorts of things and you can join in as much as you want but there is no pressure if you don't feel like it.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed falls, changed night staffing and arranged further support and training to reduce risks.
“This demonstrated to us that there were systems in place to review accidents and that the manager was responsive and proactive in considering solutions.” from the report
Mental capacity checks
needs fixingCapacity was not always assessed when people could not make decisions for themselves. The report also found missing best-interest decisions and some restrictions not included in DoLS applications.
“However, we saw that when people did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves this was not always assessed.” from the report
Managerial continuity
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A manager was beginning registration at the time but later left, and the provider said other staff and services would cover the role.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How do you now assess whether a person has capacity to make decisions about their care and medicines?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed when a person lacks capacity?
- 03How do you check that all restrictions, including equipment used to prevent falls, are covered by the correct legal safeguards?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, following the manager's departure, and has that person applied to become the registered manager?
- 05How have you acted on the recommendation about Mental Capacity Act assessments since this inspection?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five questions and the overall service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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 Grange
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 August 2012.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.