CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Meadows Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risk assessments, safety checks, enough staff, safe recruitment and effective infection control. One medicines administration record did not match the stock, but the home addressed this immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, staff supervision, team meetings and systems for handling incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns. Relatives and professionals described the management as approachable and responsive.
What inspectors found, July 2021
The Meadows Residential Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with one medicines record discrepancy addressed immediately.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 29 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and effective infection control. Medicines were generally managed safely, although one person's medicines record did not match the stock. The home acted immediately and made an action plan.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2019. It was no longer in breach of the regulations linked to safe care and treatment and good governance.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for the other key questions were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Risk management
The home had risk assessments and management plans covering areas such as falls, choking, moving and handling and COVID-19. These were reviewed regularly.
“Risk assessments contained guidance for minimising risks to people and were regularly reviewed to help keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, arranged testing and managed visiting in line with guidance.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management oversight
Audits covered medicines, incidents, complaints, safeguarding and records. Staff also had meetings and supervision to discuss practice and improvements.
“The provider had systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating risk and improving the quality of the service.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said they were kept informed and could contact management by phone or email. They also received newsletters and updates.
“Anything we need, we email or phone. They reply immediately and make sure we are well informed.” from the report
One medicines record discrepancy
minorOne person's medicines administration record did not match the stock. Inspectors said it appeared to be a single administration and the impact was minimal. The manager acted immediately and started an action plan.
“However, we saw that one person's medicines administration records (MAR) did not reconcile with the stock.” from the report
- 01What checks were completed after the medicines record did not match the stock?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines administration records match the medicines held?
- 03How often are residents' risk assessments reviewed, and what happens when their needs change?
- 04How are incidents, falls and safeguarding concerns reviewed to make sure lessons are acted on?
- 05Which ratings from the 2019 inspection were carried forward rather than reassessed in 2021?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement for the second time; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but important safety and management systems were not reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 September 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was caring, effective and responsive. Staff were kind, people were involved in decisions, their health needs were supported, and activities and complaints arrangements were in place. There were enough staff on duty and recruitment checks had improved.
Safety checks were not reliable enough. Some risks were not assessed or managed properly, medicines records and instructions were unclear, and parts of the building were unsafe. Management audits had not found all these problems. The home remained in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty to support people safely. People said staff came quickly when they used the buzzer.
“We observed there were enough staff on duty to support people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring, patient and respectful. Staff involved people in everyday choices and supported their independence.
“Staff are respectful. They always treat the individual as an individual.” from the report
Support with health and food
People were supported to eat and drink enough and to access healthcare. The home worked with GPs, nurses, pharmacists and other professionals.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans included people's routines, needs and preferences. People were offered activities and supported to maintain relationships.
“Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences and were updated regularly or when people's needs changed.” from the report
Risks were not fully assessed
seriousRisk assessments and plans were missing for some important situations, including going into the community, Parkinson's disease, behaviours that challenged the service and choking. Emergency evacuation plans were also not clear enough.
“However not all risks had been identified and risk management plans had not been developed.” from the report
Medicines instructions were unclear
seriousSome instructions for as-required medicines were too general. Records were unclear about who should give one person's medicines, and guidance for crushed medicines was not dated or signed.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Some areas were unsafe or unsuitable
seriousA ground-floor fire exit was not a clear escape route. A cupboard containing medicated creams could be opened with its key left in place, and a top-floor toilet was not clean and had no door handle.
“The environment was not always safe.” from the report
- 01What risk assessments and care plans are now in place for people with Parkinson's disease, choking risks, behaviours that challenge the service and trips into the community?
- 02How are as-required medicines, oxygen and crushed medicines managed now, and how do you make sure the instructions are current and person-specific?
- 03Has the ground-floor fire exit been cleared, and are personal emergency evacuation plans now clear about the help each person needs?
- 04How do your audits now identify safety problems that were missed at the inspection?
- 05What action plan was sent to the CQC, and what improvements have been completed since September 2019?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that considered all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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.
Every inspection of The Meadows Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Meadows Residential Care Home →
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Meadows Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Ealing
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 £1,300 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.