Meadow Park

Updated 13 November 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 27 October 2021 and was announced.

Updated 13 November 2021

Meadow Park provides care to a maximum of 61 older people, including those who have a dementia related condition and live in a unit within the home called Memory Lane. There were 57 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

The inspection took place on 20, 24 and 25 July 2017. The first day was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know that we would be visiting.

We last inspected the service on 26 April 2016. We found the provider was meeting all of the regulations we inspected although we made recommendations with regards to medicines and staffing. We gave the service a rating of 'requires improvement.' At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the rating was changed from 'requires improvement' to 'good.'

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We checked the management of medicines and found improvements had been made in relation to record keeping and the management of topical medicines such as creams and lotions.

Suitable numbers of staff were on duty. Accidents and incidents had been analysed and staffing levels were adjusted to ensure staff were deployed in sufficient numbers at the locations and peak times accidents tended to occur. This had resulted in a reduction in unwitnessed falls.

Staff recruitment records we examined demonstrated suitable checks and procedures had been followed to support safe recruitment decisions and maintain the safety of vulnerable people.

Staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. They were aware of the procedures to follow. A safeguarding log was maintained with up to date information.

General risk assessments and checks were in place to monitor the safety of the premises and equipment. Individual risks to people had also been assessed and care plans were in place to address these risks.

The home was clean and well maintained. Infection control procedures were followed by staff.

Staff received regular training and supervision, and told us they felt well supported.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The health needs of people were met. Staff sought timely advice from care professionals and records confirmed that people had access to a number of these including GP’s, mental health and general nursing staff.

People were supported with eating and drinking. Records of food likes, dislikes and special dietary requirements were held. People’s weights were closely monitored and action taken in the event of concerns about their nutritional status.

The premises took into account ‘dementia friendly’ design in most areas but bathrooms did not always meet best practice guidance in this area. There was access to outdoor space which people enjoyed using.

Staff were caring, polite, warm and friendly in their approach. People and their relatives were complimentary about the welcoming atmosphere in the home.

People were involved in aspects of the running of the service. ‘Resident Ambassadors’ had been elected, and they contributed to promoting the voice of people using the service and supported the home when they hosted guests and visitors to open events.

Privacy and dignity was supported by staff. Improvements had been made to the storage of records which helped to maintain confidentiality of information, and staff described a variety of ways they maintained people’s privacy. They also ensured the independence of people was promoted.

Person centred care plans were in place which were up to date and regularly reviewed. They contained detailed information about individual needs and preferences.

A range of one to one and group activities were available. Activities were planned in advance and evaluated to assess whether they were beneficial and enjoyable to people.

There were no recent formal complaints and a log of complaints received by the service was maintained.

A new registered manager was in post. The registered manager and the deputy were praised by staff and relatives for their support. It was reported that morale had improved in the home, and that the registered manager had introduced a number of positive changes.

A number of systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.