CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadowside Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, safe admissions, PPE, testing and visiting arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found the home was clean and fresh. They found regular cleaning, infection control checks, suitable PPE, staff training and testing for people and staff. They were assured that admissions and visits were managed safely.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about the areas checked, but it is not an overall CQC rating of the home.
Clean environment
The home had regular cleaning schedules and additional cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Infection control audits were carried out and actions were followed up.
“The service was clean and fresh, staff carried out a regular cleaning schedule.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions were only allowed after a confirmed negative COVID-19 test. The environment had been assessed so people could be isolated if needed.
“The provider had robust systems to ensure safe admissions, including only allowing new admissions after a confirmed negative result of the Covid-19 test.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff had training and regular competency checks on infection control and PPE. The home had a sufficient PPE supply and a designated area for putting it on and taking it off.
“Staff had received training on infection prevention and control guidance.” from the report
Keeping relatives in touch
Relatives could stay in contact through technology and safe face-to-face visits. Visits changed as restrictions were lifted, in line with government guidance.
“People's relatives were able to stay in touch with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how often are cleaning and infection control checks completed?
- 02How would you manage a new resident who needed to isolate after admission?
- 03How are visits arranged now, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and could these affect the care provided?
- 05How are staff trained and checked on using PPE safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with small improvements needed to recruitment records and accessible information.
The home was inspected without notice on 30 October 2018 by one inspector. The inspection looked at all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors spoke with seven people, relatives or visitors, and staff. They also observed care, lunch and medicines being given, and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, accidents and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans, kind staff and a calm atmosphere. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities, independence and personal choices.
There were two areas to improve. Two of the three staff files checked did not contain a full employment history, although the manager acted straight away and there was no reported impact on people. The manager also needed to review the Accessible Information Standard. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection in May 2016.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of through robust arrangements. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“There were robust arrangements in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and compassion. People were supported to remain as independent as possible.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by a caring staff team.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's physical, social, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff respected preferred routines and updated plans when needs changed.
“Individualised and responsive care was provided to people by a staff team who recognised the importance of lifestyle preferences.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team was described as supportive and approachable. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor and improve the service.
“The service continued to be well-led.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingTwo of the three staff files checked did not contain a full employment history. The manager took immediate action to change the recruitment process, and inspectors found no impact on people.
“However, we noted a full employment history was not held in two of the three files we reviewed.” from the report
Accessible information
needs fixingThe manager was not fully aware of the Accessible Information Standard. Inspectors recommended reviewing it, although care plans did include communication needs and guidance.
“We recommend the provider reviews the accessible information standard and checks they are meeting the requirements of the standard.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now been completed with full employment histories?
- 02How do you currently meet the Accessible Information Standard for people with communication or sensory needs?
- 03Are the staffing levels still based on regular reviews of people's dependency and needs?
- 04How are people's activity preferences and individual routines recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are medicines staff trained and their competence checked now?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions; the overall and five question ratings remained Good from the May 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2018 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 Meadowside Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Meadowside Residential Care Home →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Meadowside Residential Care Home →
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 November 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.