CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Meadway Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but medicines, staffing, records and management oversight were not consistently safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 and 6 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, staffing, medicines and management records.
The home was clean and people generally felt safe and were treated kindly. However, medicines were not always managed safely. Some equipment and call bell checks were not reliable, staffing was not always sufficient or well organised, and infection control practices were not always followed.
People did not always receive the right support with food, drinks, oral care or personalised care. Care plans and records were sometimes out of date. There was no registered manager in post, and quality checks had not consistently led to lasting improvements.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home had already been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2020 and remained in breach of two regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People generally felt well treated and supported. Regular staff were described as committed to kindness, dignity and independence.
“People generally felt they were well treated and supported.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and were committed to keeping people safe. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and action was taken to reduce risks.
“Staff understood their responsibilities and were committed to keeping people safe.” from the report
Activities available
An activity worker encouraged people to join group activities and tried to speak with everyone each day.
“There are lots of activities like karaoke, other singers and flower arranging.” from the report
Medicines were not safely managed
seriousProblems remained with medicine storage, variable doses, creams, thickeners and guidance for medicines given when required. Overnight arrangements could delay some medicines.
“Medicines continued to be unsafely managed. Some issues identified at the last inspection had not been addressed.” from the report
Safety equipment and staffing
seriousSome sensor mats did not work, call bells were not always within reach and a sluice room was not consistently locked. Staff and relatives raised concerns about staffing levels and staff not knowing people's needs.
“People's safety was not always effectively managed and placed them at risk of harm.” from the report
Out-of-date care information
needs fixingSome care plans contained inconsistent or outdated information. Daily records did not always show that personalised care had been provided.
“Some of these contained good detail about people and their needs, whilst others contained out of date or inconsistent information and lacked person-centred detail.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe home had no registered manager in post, and quality checks had not made sure earlier problems were fixed and maintained.
“Not enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was still in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make medicine storage, variable doses and medicines given when required safe, including overnight?
- 02How many staff are normally on each shift, and how do you make sure they know residents' needs?
- 03How do you check that each person has enough to drink and receives the correct diet and oral care?
- 04How are care plans being updated, and how do you check that staff follow the personal details in them?
- 05Who is now responsible for management oversight, and what evidence can you show that previous inspection concerns have been fixed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and it followed up concerns and actions from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but cleaning records did not always show that high-touch areas had been cleaned as advised.
This was a targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors gave the home two hours' notice and looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, correct use of PPE, infection control training and regular COVID-19 testing. They were assured that the home had safe arrangements for visiting, admissions, vaccinations and managing outbreaks.
The home was clean and hygienic when inspectors visited. However, cleaning records did not always show that high-touch areas, such as handrails, had been cleaned in line with guidance. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
PPE and infection control
There was plenty of PPE, and staff were using it correctly. Staff had also completed infection control and hand-washing training.
“There was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) available. We saw PPE being correctly used by staff.” from the report
Testing and vaccinations
Staff and residents took part in regular COVID-19 testing. The home supported people to access vaccinations and met the vaccination requirement in force at the time.
“Staff and people living at the home took part in a regular programme of testing for COVID-19” from the report
Outbreak arrangements
Inspectors found that outbreak arrangements were being used to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading.
“Outbreak principles were appropriately implemented to ensure the risk of the spread of COVID-19 was reduced.” from the report
Visiting and admissions
Inspectors were assured that the home had safe arrangements for visiting and admitting people during the pandemic.
“The provider had safe systems in place to facilitate and support visiting at the home in line with the national guidance.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorThe home was clean and hygienic, but records did not always show that high-touch areas such as handrails had been cleaned in line with guidance.
“Cleaning schedules and records were in place, however these did not always reflect that high touch point areas, such as handrails, had been cleaned in line with guidance.” from the report
- 01How are high-touch areas such as handrails cleaned now, and how do you check and record this?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors signposted resources to improve the infection control approach?
- 03How are you managing COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and has this affected care?
- 04What are the current arrangements for visiting and for admitting new residents?
- 05How do you keep testing, vaccination and outbreak arrangements under review?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
Every inspection of Meadway Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.