CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadow View Residential Care Home
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, more personalised care after earlier problems, although there was no registered manager in post at the inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 18 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed meals and an activity, and checked care records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements in medicines, risk assessments, care plans, activities, staffing at night and quality checks. People were supported by staff who understood their needs, including dementia, learning disabilities and autism.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in August 2022. The home had two breaches then, involving safe care and treatment and good governance. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made, so the home was no longer in breach.
Improved medicines systems
The electronic medicines system was established, with protocols and audits to reduce mistakes and stock discrepancies. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“At this inspection the electronic medication system had been embedded and regular audits ensured the risk of any stock discrepancies were minimised.” from the report
Better risk management
Risk assessments covered people's health and daily lives more consistently. Staff had guidance for choking risks, eating and drinking, falls and skin damage.
“At this inspection the consistency in assessing and monitoring potential risks to people's safety had improved.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and included group and individual sessions. The home had also introduced a daily period when all staff spent time with people.
“At this inspection activities were based on people's interests and included group and one to one sessions.” from the report
Positive management culture
Inspectors found management to be visible and approachable. People, relatives and staff said their views were listened to and acted on.
“The management team was approachable and listened and responded to people's views.” from the report
Skilled dementia support
Relatives said staff understood dementia and frailty well. Inspectors also found staff had training and guidance for people's specific communication and support needs.
“Relatives said that staff had the right skills, aptitude, and knowledge to support people effectively.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The manager had started an application, so families should check whether this has since been completed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Laundry problems
minorSome people and relatives reported clothes going missing or being returned to the wrong person. A coding system and lost property area had been introduced to address this.
“A few mentioned some niggles with the laundry and clothing going missing or being given the wrong clothes.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed, and who is legally responsible for the home now?
- 02How are medicines audits being checked, and have there been any further stock discrepancies or missed medicines?
- 03How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments remain detailed and up to date for each person?
- 04What has been the result of the new clothing coding and lost property arrangements?
- 05Which refurbishment work is still underway, and how will disruption to residents be limited?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care records, staff training and quality checks, although people described kind care.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 7 and 8 June 2022, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe or effective. Some people could not be assured they received medicines as prescribed. Risk information was sometimes out of date or unclear, and only half of staff were up to date with some important training.
Care plans did not always give staff enough information about people's history, interests and support needs. Inspectors also found weaknesses in handling complaints and in the systems used to check and improve quality.
There were positive findings too. People and relatives generally said they were happy with the care, staff recruitment was safe, infection control was satisfactory, and people were supported with food, healthcare and end of life care. The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection to Requires Improvement.
Kind relationships
People and relatives described staff as caring and trustworthy. Inspectors saw warm interactions and people enjoying conversations with staff.
“There were kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home checked employment histories, references and suitability before staff started work.
“Staff were recruited safely.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment properly and had arrangements to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices at meals and received support with nutrition, hydration and healthcare appointments.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed significant events, identified patterns and shared learning with staff.
“Lessons were learned when things did not go as expected.” from the report
Medicine records and guidance
seriousInspectors found discrepancies between medicine records and stock. There was also not enough written guidance for some 'when needed' medicines and for rotating pain patches.
“People could not be assured they received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.” from the report
Risks not consistently managed
seriousSome risk assessments were incomplete or out of date. This included risks involving choking, wounds, skin damage and specialist mattresses.
“The provider had failed to consistently assess, analyse and mitigate risks to people's safety.” from the report
Incomplete staff training
needs fixingA significant number of staff had not completed expected training. Only half the staff team were up to date with fire evacuation and the theory of moving and handling.
“Managers had identified a significant number of staff had not met the expected levels of completion of the provider's training programme.” from the report
Care plans and activities
needs fixingSome care plans contained little information about people's past lives and interests. This meant some people were not always supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Peoples' care plans were inconsistent in providing staff with information about their needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not consistently find or correct the problems inspectors identified. The report says this breached the good governance regulation.
“The providers systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not consistently effective.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure medicine records match the stock and that 'when needed' medicines have clear guidance?
- 02How are risks such as choking, wounds, skin damage and air flow mattress settings now recorded and checked?
- 03How many staff have completed the outstanding fire evacuation and moving and handling training?
- 04How are each person's history, interests and preferred activities recorded and used in their daily care?
- 05What evidence can you show of the action plan and of improvements since the inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected and the overall rating used the previous rating for any key question not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2022 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 View Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Meadow View Residential Care Home →
- August 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Meadow View Residential Care Home →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2015.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.