CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadows
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and there were enough safely recruited staff. Inspectors noted that some risk assessments were out of date, although staff knowledge helped reduce the risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to meet people's needs. The home worked with health professionals, supported people's nutrition and used communication methods suited to people who were deaf or hearing impaired.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and flexible, with accessible information and support for people's individual interests, faith and communication needs. Inspectors said some care review processes were not very structured and were being improved.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had improved audits, communication and oversight after serious concerns about financial safeguards. However, there was no registered manager at the inspection, and inspectors wanted evidence that the improvements would continue.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall, with kind and safe care, but well-led Requires Improvement after concerns about financial safeguards and management oversight.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 26 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, two family members, the provider and staff. They also reviewed care records, safeguarding information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, effective medicines systems, good support for communication needs and respectful, person-centred care.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The previous manager had left, there was no registered manager during the inspection, and concerns had previously been raised about financial abuse. The provider had improved its checks and acted on the concerns, but inspectors wanted more time to see whether these improvements would last.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection in 2015. The home was not placed in special measures and the report does not state that any regulations were breached.
Kind relationships
People appeared relaxed with staff and had good relationships with them. Families described staff as kind and caring.
“People at the service achieved good outcomes and had good relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Communication support
Staff used different communication methods, including British Sign Language. The home also made changes to support deaf or hearing-impaired people and staff.
“Staff communicated effectively with people, using a variety of communication methods, including BSL.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, training and guidance relevant to people's needs. This included British Sign Language training where required.
“New staff received a detailed induction and training, including British Sign Language courses for all staff, where required.” from the report
Sensory needs
Assessments and advice about sensory needs were particularly strong and based on recognised best practice.
“Assessments and advice to staff around people's sensory needs was of an excellent standard and based on best practice guidance.” from the report
Previous financial safeguarding failure
seriousA 2018 investigation found that the home did not then have adequate systems to protect people from financial abuse. The provider had tightened the systems, but inspectors were concerned that the risk had not been identified sooner.
“This investigation found that at the time of the concerns there were not adequate systems to safeguard people from financial abuse.” from the report
Management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager during the inspection after the previous manager left. A director had applied to become registered manager, but this had not yet been confirmed.
“There was no registered manager at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Out-of-date risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessment information was not current. Staff knew people well enough to reduce the risk, and the assessments were being revised.
“Some of the information in the risk assessment was out-of-date.” from the report
Care reviews needed more structure
needs fixingCare was flexible, but some processes for reviewing care were not well structured. The provider said improvements were being made.
“Although people's care was flexible around their needs, some of the processes for reviewing care were not very structured.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to protect residents' money and identify any risk of financial abuse?
- 02Who is currently managing the home, and has the manager's CQC registration been confirmed?
- 03How often are residents' risk assessments reviewed, and how do you make sure they remain up to date?
- 04How are care reviews structured, and how will you involve the resident and family in them?
- 05How do you check that the recent improvements in audits and management oversight are being sustained?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five areas; Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good, while Well-led dropped from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 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 Meadows
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2014.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.