CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadowfield Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and monitored, and staff responded quickly to people's needs. Inspectors found that some care plan information was inconsistent and recommended stronger oversight.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained, and people were supported with food, drinks and access to health professionals. Consent and best-interest decisions were recorded appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People told inspectors staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity, respected their privacy and supported their choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's preferences, communication needs and life histories. Concerns were encouraged and there was a system to record and act on them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, regular feedback from people and staff, and checks to monitor quality. The manager was also planning an overarching improvement action plan.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Meadowfield Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some care plan records needing better consistency.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 December 2023. One inspector spoke with four people and six staff, reviewed five care files and medicine records, and checked documents about how the home was run.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, good infection control and appropriate support with eating, drinking and health needs.
The main shortfall was that some information in care plans did not match. The home acted straight away, but inspectors recommended improving checks on care plans. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in 2017.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitable staff to support people safely. People said staff responded quickly when they needed help.
“Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices and encouraged independence.
“Warm and positive interactions took place between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and personal histories. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans were very person-centred. Staff were directed to deliver support in the way in which each person preferred.” from the report
Open leadership
The home had a positive culture, regular meetings and feedback from people, relatives and staff. Inspectors found a focus on learning and improvement.
“There was a clear vision for high-quality care in the home, led by the registered manager.” from the report
Care plan consistency
needs fixingSome care plan information did not match across records. The home took immediate action, and inspectors recommended better management and checking of care plans.
“However, we identified some areas of some care plans where not all the information was consistent.” from the report
Planned environment improvements
minorThe manager had identified that parts of the environment and decoration needed improvement. A refurbishment programme was expected to begin in the new year.
“The registered manager had identified changes were needed to the environment and decoration.” from the report
Further end-of-life planning
minorPeople's end-of-life wishes were recorded and met, but the manager identified further improvements to end-of-life care planning.
“The registered manager had identified further improvements in people's end of life care planning” from the report
- 01How are you checking that information in each person's care plan is consistent and up to date?
- 02What changes to the building and decoration were planned, and what progress has been made?
- 03How will senior staff deployment support improvements to care plan consistency?
- 04How are you improving end-of-life care planning and involving each person and their family?
- 05How do you monitor people's food, drink and weight when there is a risk of malnutrition?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 2024 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; COVID-19 infection control was mostly reassuring, but PPE and flooring needed attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found several good practices. Staff had a separate entrance to change clothes, put on protective equipment and take tests. People could receive visitors, or use other ways to stay in touch during an outbreak. Staff were vaccinated and tested regularly.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. They were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used correctly and that the building's layout and hygiene were safe. The provider acted during the inspection to improve PPE use, and had an action plan for replacing some flooring.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for safe care.
Safer staff entry
Staff could enter separately to change clothes, put on PPE and take COVID-19 tests before walking through the home.
“Staff had a separate entrance to allow them to change clothing, don PPE and take covid tests prior to walking through the service.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to have visitors, with alternative arrangements available during an outbreak.
“People were supported to have visitors and alternative arrangements were available to support people to maintain contact with their family and friends in the event of an outbreak.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Staff were vaccinated and took part in regular COVID-19 testing.
“Staff were vaccinated and took part in regular testing for COVID-19.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured about testing, admissions, outbreak management, visiting arrangements and the infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
PPE use
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used safely and effectively. The provider took action during the inspection to correct this.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Flooring and premises
needs fixingSome areas needed attention, including flooring that required replacement. An action plan was in place, but the report does not say that the work was finished.
“Some areas of the home required attention such as flooring replacing.” from the report
- 01Has all staff PPE practice been checked and improved since the inspection?
- 02Which areas of flooring needed replacing, and has that work now been completed?
- 03How are visitors supported if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 05What arrangements are in place to manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Meadowfield Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.