CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadowbanks Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Risks such as falls, choking and pressure sores were assessed and managed. Medicines were administered and recorded safely, with no errors or discrepancies found in the records reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and appraisals, and people received healthcare and support with nutrition. Inspectors found gaps in some staff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and recommended further training on this and managing behaviours that challenge the service.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, encouraged to remain independent and supported according to their preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. People could choose activities and raise concerns, and inspectors found that feedback and complaints were addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff felt supported and worked well as a team. The home used surveys, meetings, audits and other checks to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Meadowbanks Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but recommended more staff training and noted building repairs and some past night staffing gaps.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care and spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness and dignity. Medicines, staffing, care planning, activities, complaints and management systems were generally handled well.
The home had improved its medicines management since the previous inspection. Inspectors recommended further training on the Mental Capacity Act and on supporting people whose behaviour could pose risks. They also noted cracks in parts of the building and four occasions when night staffing was below the usual level, although action and assurances were provided.
Safer medicines
Medicines management had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found clear records, suitable storage, staff competency checks and regular audits.
“During this inspection, we found that there were no errors or discrepancies around medicine management.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their choices and protected their privacy. People were encouraged to stay as independent as possible.
“We observed the service was peaceful and quiet. People and staff did not raise their voices with each other and there was very positive, kind, caring and respectful interaction between them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, backgrounds, interests and preferences. People could choose how to spend their time and which activities to join.
“It outlined people's backgrounds, their current likes and dislikes, including their personal care preferences and interests.” from the report
Responsive management
People and relatives could raise concerns, make suggestions and give compliments. Feedback had led to changes, including improvements to the garden and menus.
“For example, we noted that improvements were made to the garden area outside, following feedback received from people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, surveys, meetings and spot checks to review the service and identify improvements.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided and to drive further improvements.” from the report
Further staff training needed
needs fixingSome staff were not fully confident about the Mental Capacity Act or supporting people whose behaviour could pose risks. Inspectors recommended further guidance and training.
“We recommend the provider seek further guidance on training for staff to effectively support people using the service who may require positive behaviour management and on the MCA and DoLS, where required.” from the report
Building cracks
needs fixingInspectors found cracks in a first-floor corridor and a bathroom, and a small lounge was out of use. The provider said the building had been surveyed as safe and was taking action to arrange repairs.
“These were in the form of a number of hairline and large cracks in the walls of a corridor on the first floor.” from the report
Past night staffing gaps
needs fixingRecords showed four occasions when there were three staff rather than four on the night shift. The provider said recruitment had taken place and that staffing was then sufficient for people's needs.
“We found four occasions between 25 July and 7 August where there were three staff instead of four during the night shift.” from the report
- 01What further training have staff completed on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 02What training do staff receive to support people whose behaviour may pose a risk to themselves or others?
- 03What repairs were completed to the cracks in the first-floor corridor and bathroom, and is the small lounge now available?
- 04How many staff are planned for each night shift, and how do you cover sickness or vacancies?
- 05How do you make sure medicines are given on time and recorded correctly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas and included observations, discussions and reviews of care, medicine, staffing and other records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2017 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 Meadowbanks Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.