CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadow House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They checked visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed as a separate question in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted oversight of infection prevention and control.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Meadow House Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were safe during the Covid-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 17 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found good practice. The home used personal protective equipment, carried out testing, planned admissions carefully and supported people returning from hospital to isolate for 14 days. Admissions had been suspended because of the outbreak.
Relatives could not visit during the outbreak, but the home had previously arranged garden visits and used video calls. End-of-life visits were allowed by appointment for one nominated person, with protective equipment.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for all five questions. Inspectors were assured about the infection prevention and control measures they checked.
Infection control
The home had detailed risk assessments, infection control audits and cleaning schedules to manage the risks from Covid-19.
“There were comprehensive infection control audits and cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment in line with guidance and had infection control training arrangements in place.
“Staff used (PPE) in line with guidance, implementing training provided by the clinical commissioning group (CCG), to safeguard people using the service and staff.” from the report
Safe admissions
Admissions and returns from hospital were planned carefully. New and returning residents were supported to isolate for 14 days.
“New admissions and people returning from hospital were supported to isolate in their room for 14 days, in line with guidance.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Although ordinary visits were suspended during the outbreak, the home supported video calls and had previously arranged socially distanced garden visits.
“People were able to communicate with family through alternative means such as video calls.” from the report
Visiting and admissions were restricted
minorRelatives could not visit during the Covid-19 outbreak, and admissions had been suspended. These were outbreak measures described in the report, not a CQC breach.
“At the time of the inspection relatives were not permitted to visit due to a Covid -19 outbreak, though the provider had previously arranged visits for relatives and had facilitated garden visits with social distancing in place.” from the report
- 01What visiting arrangements are currently in place, including visits for people receiving end-of-life care?
- 02Are admissions currently open, and how are new residents or people returning from hospital isolated?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How is staff training in infection control and protective equipment refreshed?
- 05How can residents keep in contact with relatives if in-person visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a Covid-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2020 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, December 2019
Meadow House Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicine checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 11 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment 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 and were happy with the care, food and activities. Inspectors found staff were kind, trained and familiar with people's needs.
There were some weaknesses. Medicine stock checks did not always match the expected amounts, some upstairs windows initially lacked suitable restrictors, and some staff said more staff might be needed at night. The home took immediate action on the windows and completed a full medicine audit.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, with a breach of Regulation 17. Inspectors found improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. No follow-up was required.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff checked that people were comfortable and supported their dignity and independence.
“Interactions between staff and people were natural and showed positive relationships had been developed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, health needs and choices. Staff knew people well and adapted support to them.
“Information in care plans was robust and person centred and included details about people's life history, their likes and dislikes and specific health and emotional needs.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported with food, drinks and individual dietary needs.
“People were supported to eat a varied and nutritious diet based on their individual preferences.” from the report
Improved leadership and oversight
The home had introduced more detailed audits, regular meetings and action plans. Inspectors found that the previous governance breach had been addressed.
“There were detailed quality assurance procedures in place.” from the report
Medicine stock checks
needs fixingThree medicine stock counts did not match the expected amounts. Inspectors said audits needed to be more robust, although the issue had not affected people and a full audit was completed.
“This demonstrated that medicine audits needed to be more robust to ensure that medicine stock in place was appropriate.” from the report
Upstairs window safety
needs fixingSeveral upstairs windows did not initially have suitable restrictors. This could have posed a risk, but the manager and provider acted immediately during the inspection.
“A number of upstairs windows did not have appropriate window restrictors in place.” from the report
Night staffing
minorSome people and staff said staffing might be lower than needed at night. Inspectors observed enough staff overall, and management agreed to review these comments.
“There are enough staff in the day, I think they might need more at night though.” from the report
- 01How often are medicine stock counts now completed, and what happens if the records do not match?
- 02What action was taken to fit suitable restrictors to all upstairs windows?
- 03How do you check that there are enough staff during the night for people's changing needs?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home while the manager's CQC registration is being processed?
- 05How will my relative's personal preferences, communication needs and activities be recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating and Regulation 17 breach. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 House Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Meadow House Residential Home →
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Meadow House Residential Home →
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 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.