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, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and medicines generally given as prescribed. They identified medicines that had not been dated when opened and one higher-risk medicine that was not stored according to guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, staff received relevant training and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Some decision-specific mental capacity assessments were not in place and some training updates were outstanding.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff had built trusting relationships and adapted communication to people's needs. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individualised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported to choose their routines and take part in activities at home and in the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, good teamwork and systems for checking and improving the service. The home used audits and feedback discussions, although planned relative questionnaires had not yet been completed.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some medicines and capacity records needing attention.
This was the first comprehensive inspection since the home registered in June 2017. Inspectors visited on 24 July 2018 after giving 24 hours' notice. They spoke with staff, one relative and one healthcare professional, reviewed care and medicines records, and observed interactions.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine administration, individual care plans, good links with healthcare professionals, kind relationships and activities that reflected people's interests.
Inspectors also found some issues to address. Some medicines had not been dated when opened, one higher-risk medicine was not stored according to guidance, some decision-specific capacity assessments were missing, and some staff training updates were outstanding.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and spend meaningful time with them. Recruitment checks and induction processes supported people's safety.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and ensure there was time to spend meaningfully with people.” from the report
Individual support and activities
Care plans gave staff guidance about people's needs, choices and wellbeing. People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community.
“People were supported to participate in various activities both in the home and going out into the community” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with families and healthcare professionals to support consistent care, including when people moved between services or needed hospital care.
“The staff worked closely with other organisations and professionals, for example people's social workers, GPs and consultants” from the report
Medicines not always dated
seriousSome medicines, including nasal spray, had not been dated when opened. Inspectors said this could mean they became out of date without staff realising.
“we saw that not all medicines were dated when opened, for example there was some nasal spray which had not been dated when opened.” from the report
One medicine stored incorrectly
seriousOne higher-risk medicine was not stored according to guidance. The home moved it to a second locked cabinet immediately after the inspection.
“there was one medicines which was not stored according to guidelines, as it was associated with higher risk.” from the report
Missing capacity assessments
needs fixingThere were not always decision-specific assessments about finances, self-medication or returning home. The manager said these would be completed.
“there were not always decision-specific capacity assessments for people to ascertain their management of finances, and potential to self-medicate or to return home.” from the report
Some training updates outstanding
needs fixingSome staff training updates had not yet been completed because of an unexpected management absence. The home planned to complete them in the autumn.
“some training updates were outstanding due to an unexpected absence of a member of the management team” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every medicine is dated when opened, including nasal sprays and creams?
- 02What checks are now in place for storing higher-risk medicines?
- 03Have the decision-specific mental capacity assessments about finances, self-medication and returning home been completed?
- 04Were all outstanding staff training updates completed as planned in the autumn?
- 05How do you gather the views of residents who cannot give verbal feedback?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions, with two care records and medicines, staffing and management records reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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.
Every inspection of The Meadows
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 June 2017.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.