CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Queens Meadow Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were generally protected from abuse and risks were assessed, but medicines were not always given or recorded correctly. Staff also did not always follow safe eating arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, people received help with food and healthcare, and staff worked within mental capacity law.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The interim management team was described as approachable and supportive. Audits, feedback and notifications were used to monitor and improve the service, although medicines audits had previously been ineffective.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines management was not always safe and the Safe rating Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 21 June and 05 July 2022. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, the building and care provided. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and observed care in communal areas.
People generally felt safe and spoke warmly about staff. There were enough staff most of the time, risks were assessed, infection control was effective and people could access healthcare. Staff were trained and supported, and the home involved people in decisions about their care.
The main shortfall was medicines management. Some time-specific medicines were not given exactly as instructed, and records did not always accurately show where patches had been applied. Staff also did not always follow safe eating arrangements, and some meals were taken to rooms without covers. The home was asked to improve medicines practice.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in 2018. Safe stayed at Requires Improvement. Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Kind, familiar staff
People spoke fondly about the staff and said they felt understood and cared for.
“I absolutely love [care staff], they always look after me and know what I need” from the report
Health support
People were supported to maintain their health and to see professionals such as GPs, nurses, dieticians and therapists when needed.
“People were supported to maintain their health.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff completed regular training, induction, supervision and appraisals to help them support people.
“Staff completed regular training to make sure they had the correct skills and knowledge to appropriately support people.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousSome medicines that had to be given at particular times were not administered in line with GP instructions. Records about the location of patches were also sometimes inaccurate.
“Some time-specific medicines were not being administered in accordance with GP instructions and there were some inaccuracies in recording the location of patch applications.” from the report
Safe eating arrangements were not always followed
needs fixingAlthough eating and drinking risks were assessed, staff did not always use the safety measures in care plans. One person was not positioned appropriately while eating.
“However, staff didn't always follow safety measures. For example, staff didn't ensure a person was sat appropriately whilst eating their meal.” from the report
Some meals were uncovered
needs fixingOn one floor, staff took meals to people's rooms without covers. Managers addressed this during the inspection.
“However, on the ground floor, staff were observed taking people's meals to their rooms without covers.” from the report
Some people waited for help
needs fixingInspectors found there were generally enough staff, but some people and relatives said that people sometimes had to wait for support, including help to use the toilet.
“Some people and relatives felt that more staff were required at times, as people sometimes had to wait for support.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure time-specific medicines are given exactly as prescribed?
- 02How do you now check that medicine records, including patch locations, are accurate?
- 03How do staff make sure people are positioned safely while eating and drinking?
- 04What has been done to ensure meals taken to people's rooms are covered?
- 05Is the new manager now in post, and who is currently legally responsible for running the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with Effective also inspected after concerns arose; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, with some further improvements needed in PPE.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full quality of care.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, including health checks, protective equipment and a safe visiting area. People and staff were tested regularly, staff had completed COVID-19 training, and the home was clean.
The service was marked as inspected but not rated. Inspectors were assured about the infection control arrangements, but said some further improvements were needed in the use of PPE.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors completed health checks and were supported to use PPE. The home also had a safe area for visits that followed government guidance.
“Visitors were asked to complete a brief questionnaire about their current health status.” from the report
Family contact
The home provided tablets and telephones to help people stay in touch with relatives.
“Systems were in place to support people to maintain contact with their family.” from the report
Staff training and testing
Staff had completed COVID-19 training, including how to use PPE. The manager said people and staff were tested regularly in line with guidance.
“Staff had completed specific COVID-19 training, including the correct use of PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with daily schedules for extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“Daily cleaning schedules were in place to ensure more frequent cleaning was completed including frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
Further PPE improvements
minorInspectors said the home needed to improve some aspects of its PPE arrangements. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
“We found some further improvements could be made regarding PPE, so we have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What PPE improvements were identified after this inspection, and what has been changed?
- 02How are visitors currently checked and supported to use PPE?
- 03How often are residents and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 04How can residents keep in touch with their relatives, and is the safe visiting area still available?
- 05How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with the service marked inspected but not rated; it did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2021 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 Queens Meadow Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.