CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mid Meadows
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptionally safe care. People were involved in managing risks, and staff used positive risk-taking to support freedom and independence while protecting people from harm.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received effective care, with trained staff, personalised assessments, support with food and drink, and good links with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and up to date. People could choose activities, access the community, communicate in ways that suited them and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found good management oversight, regular checks and a positive culture. People, relatives, staff and professionals were given opportunities to give feedback.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding safety; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong support for independence.
This was an unannounced, scheduled comprehensive inspection on 5 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Outstanding for Safe and Good in Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from harm, received their medicines safely and were supported by enough suitable staff.
Inspectors found that people had choice and control over their daily lives. Staff supported personal goals, activities, health needs and community involvement. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Strong safety arrangements
The home used detailed risk assessments, adapted alarms and other practical measures to keep people safe while limiting unnecessary restrictions.
“People were involved in developing a comprehensive and innovative approach to safeguarding, including positive risk-taking to maximise their control over their lives.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to build skills, make choices and work towards personal goals. Staff encouraged independence in daily life and community activities.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff offering compassionate support, respecting privacy and adapting their approach to each person's needs and preferences.
“People were attended to in a timely manner and were supported with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's interests and included outings, creative activities, music, exercise and support for individual dreams and hobbies.
“We saw a further varied range of activities on offer which has happened recently, these included visiting animals such as goats.” from the report
Good oversight and teamwork
The manager and staff monitored care, medicines, safety and other areas through regular audits. Staff worked together and acted on issues found.
“There was a positive culture within the service which lead to good outcomes for people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific health needs, given that nursing care is not provided at the home?
- 02How would my relative be involved in assessing and reviewing risks, including any positive risk-taking?
- 03What training and experience would the staff supporting my relative have?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs and make information accessible to them?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in planning end of life wishes if this became relevant?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors spoke with four people, three staff and managers, observed care, and reviewed selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good, with Outstanding safety; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some activity and feedback information needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 December 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, staff and health and social care professionals, and checked care records, recruitment, training and quality monitoring records.
The home supported 20 people at the time, with places for up to 21 people who might have physical disabilities and, or, learning difficulties. Inspectors found strong safety systems, enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines arrangements and good support with health, food and personal care.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, and they were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and keep links with the community. The home had an open management culture and systems for acting on feedback.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Outstanding. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors noted that activity information on display was not always accurate or accessible, and some people found it difficult to speak openly at meetings led by management.
Strong safety systems
The home had well-established systems for identifying and reducing risks. Inspectors found that the service learned from accidents and incidents and updated its practice.
“Robust procedures and processes to ensure the safety of the people who used the service had been fully embedded.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, choices and abilities. People and their representatives were involved in reviews.
“People received personalised care and support which was effectively planned and delivered to meet their specific needs, take account of their wishes and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors saw warm, positive interactions and staff adapting how they communicated.
“Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, compassionate and professional manner.” from the report
Good health and food support
People were supported to attend health appointments and maintain their health. Food could be adapted to individual dietary needs and preferences.
“Where people required assistance, they were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Open management
The management team supported staff, listened to feedback and used quality checks to identify and address shortfalls.
“There was visible and effective leadership within the service underpinned by a clear and transparent management structure.” from the report
Activity information was unclear
minorInformation displayed in the dining room was limited, not accessible to everyone and sometimes inaccurate. The management team said it would review the system, and later told inspectors that more accurate information was on display.
“We noted that information displayed in the dining room to reflect the variety of activities people did was limited, not accessible to all the people who used the service and was not accurate.” from the report
Residents may not speak freely at meetings
needs fixingTwo people said they did not always find it easy to talk openly because meetings were led by management staff. The management team said it would review the process and consider independent advocacy.
“However two people said that because these were facilitated by the management team it wasn't always easy to talk as, "Staff are there.” from the report
Complaint records were still being developed
minorComplaints had been handled appropriately, but the home was still developing how it recorded comments and complaints and the improvements made in response.
“The registered manager advised us they were developing their systems for capturing information from comments and complaints so they could reflect the actions taken to further improve the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure activity information is accurate and accessible to every person living here?
- 02How can residents give feedback or raise concerns without management staff being present?
- 03Have you introduced independent advocacy for residents who may find meetings difficult?
- 04How do you record comments and complaints, and show what changed as a result?
- 05How are staffing levels reviewed when a person's needs change or they need support to attend an appointment or activity?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions with people and professionals, four care records, and records about staffing, training and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 Mid Meadows
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: OutstandingEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: OutstandingEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
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
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.