CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Meadows Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps and conflicting information in medicine records. Records also did not always show that people received repositioning, pressure wound care or personal care support as planned.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors recommended that mental capacity assessments should contain more detail and relate to specific decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, wishes and preferences. People had activities and communication support, although end of life discussions were not always recorded.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager had audits and checks, but these had not found the safety and recording problems identified by inspectors. New oversight systems were introduced after the inspection but needed to be embedded and sustained.
What inspectors found, August 2023
The Meadows Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and personalised care, but important safety records and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 May 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, a relative and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment files, training records and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in records about medicines, repositioning, pressure wound care, personal care and support for people who became distressed. These gaps meant there was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. People were treated with kindness, had choices, received personalised care and were supported with food, activities and healthcare. The home had made changes after the inspection, but inspectors said these needed time to become established.
Kind, respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors observed warm and caring support, with staff respecting privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People told us they were treated well, and their dignity and privacy were respected.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors found they had the knowledge and skills needed for their roles.
“People were supported by staff that had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles.” from the report
Healthcare and nutrition
The home worked with health professionals and responded to people's health needs. People's nutritional needs were assessed and meals had improved after the provider change.
“The provider worked effectively with other agencies to make sure people received all the care and support required to meet their needs.” from the report
Care records did not show planned support
seriousRecords did not always show that people received repositioning, pressure wound monitoring, oral care or other support within the required times. This created a risk of harm.
“People were at risk of harm. Staff did not always record the strategies used to support people when they became anxious or distressed.” from the report
Medicines records were unreliable
seriousSome medicine records conflicted or had gaps. Records did not always show that medicines, including creams and lotions, were given as prescribed.
“People's medicine records did not always reflect they received these as prescribed.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits and checks did not identify the care record and medicine concerns found during the inspection. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Audits and checks had not identified the concerns we found around the recording of medicines and monitoring and administering of anti-psychotic medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity records lacked detail
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were not detailed enough or linked to particular decisions. Inspectors made a recommendation for improvement.
“A second person's mental capacity assessments were poorly detailed and were not decision specific, but a reference to generic loss of mental capacity.” from the report
End of life wishes were not always recorded
minorSome care plans did not show that people had been offered the chance to discuss their end of life wishes. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve recording.
“Care plans did not always demonstrate that people had been given the opportunity to discuss their end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines, including creams and as-needed medicines, are given and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you check that people are repositioned and receive wound care, oral care and other planned support within the required times?
- 03What changes have been made to the care records and audits since the inspection, and how do you know they are working?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments linked to specific decisions about each person?
- 05How do you record whether each person has been offered the chance to discuss end of life wishes, including if they do not want to discuss them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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.
Every inspection of The Meadows Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 2023.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.