CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Meadows
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff for the people receiving personal care, safe medicines handling, suitable recruitment checks and managed risks. They were also told about occasions when staffing may not have been sufficient to ensure the safety of the service.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and understood people's support needs. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare, choice and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independent living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and activities. People were supported to see family and friends, take part in activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a new manager and regular quality checks, but the provider had admitted someone who was not compatible with other residents. Staff also said they had not always felt listened to when raising concerns.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but the home Requires Improvement for well-led because resident compatibility and staffing concerns were identified.
Inspectors visited on 23 August 2018. The visit was announced because the home is small and people are often out during the day. They spoke with people living there, staff and managers, and checked care, recruitment, training and quality records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and liked living in the home. Staff were kind, knew people well and supported their choices, health, activities, family relationships and independence. Medicines, recruitment checks, care planning and safeguarding arrangements were found to be safe.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the provider had admitted someone who was not compatible with other residents, and staff raised concerns about staffing and whether the provider listened to them.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly, giving them time and speaking respectfully. Staff knew people well and helped them when they were anxious.
“Throughout our inspection we saw the staff treated people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People had their own flats and were supported to make choices, carry out tasks themselves and develop independent living skills.
“People were supported to self-care with the staff providing guidance and support as they needed.” from the report
Safe medicines and recruitment
Medicines were stored securely and given as prescribed. Recruitment checks were carried out before new staff started.
“People received the support they needed to take their medicines safely.” from the report
Resident compatibility
needs fixingThe provider admitted someone whose needs were not compatible with other residents. Inspectors said this meant some people could not always enjoy their accommodation as they preferred.
“the registered provider had not ensured people were only admitted to the home if they were compatible with individuals who already lived there.” from the report
Staffing concerns
needs fixingA staff member reported occasions when there were not enough staff to ensure the safety of the service. The provider later gave CQC detailed staffing information and assurances that enough trained staff were available.
“there had not been enough staff in the home to ensure the safety of the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that new residents are compatible with the people already living here?
- 02What staffing levels are in place for each shift, and how do you cover sickness or unexpected absence?
- 03What has changed since staff told inspectors they did not always feel listened to by the provider?
- 04How is the new manager's registration application progressing, and who is responsible for the home in the meantime?
- 05How do you check that each person can enjoy their own flat and daily activities as they choose?
This was an announced inspection covering all five areas, but only two of the four people living there were receiving the regulated personal care activity inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found the one resident safe and well cared for after the home's major redesign.
The announced inspection took place on 11 November 2016. One inspector spoke with the resident, the registered manager and two care staff. They observed care and checked care, recruitment, training and management records. They also contacted local social work and commissioning teams.
The home had been redesigned and refurbished into four self-contained flats in January 2016. Only one person was living there at the inspection, and three more people were expected to move in during early 2017. Inspectors said it was too early to give a quality rating under the new model of care.
Inspectors found the resident safe and well cared for. Staff were kind, respectful and trained. Care was personalised, supported independence and helped the resident maintain activities and relationships. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and safety checks were managed appropriately.
All five areas were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the report describes what inspectors saw, but it does not give the home a formal Good, Requires Improvement or other quality rating. A quality rating was expected at the next comprehensive inspection.
Safe care
Inspectors found enough staff and good arrangements for medicines, recruitment, premises checks and managing risks.
“Good systems were in place to ensure the safety of people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood the resident well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“At all times the staff spoke to the individual in a kind and friendly way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records reflected the resident's preferences and needs. Staff supported activities and relationships that mattered to them.
“Activities were planned and provided in response to the preferences of the individual.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider monitored the home and planned action where improvements were identified. Staff said they felt well supported.
“The registered provider and registered manager maintained oversight of the quality of the service and took action for the continuous development of the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will staffing levels and individual staff teams change when the three expected new residents move in?
- 02How will each resident's medicines be stored in their own flat, and when will this arrangement be introduced?
- 03How will the home make sure care plans remain personalised as more people move in?
- 04What findings and rating are expected from the next comprehensive inspection?
- 05How can residents and families raise concerns, and what support is available if someone needs help making a complaint?
This was an announced inspection of the service after its care model and environment had changed considerably; all five areas were inspected but no formal ratings were given because only one person was living there. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 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 The Meadows
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.