Archived: Meadow Bank Care Home

Updated 22 December 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 8, 9, & 10 November 2016 and the first day was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of three adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at intelligence held on our own systems about the service. This included statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed safeguarding information and any comments or concerns received. We contacted health and social care professionals and asked for their views on the service provided.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We spoke with 14 people using the service, six relatives, two senior staff, four unit managers, six care staff, a housekeeper, one agency nurse, one maintenance person, the manager and the area manager. We visited eight people in their rooms to review their welfare monitoring observations completed by staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).

We looked at a sample of records including ten people’s care plans and other associated documentation, four staff recruitment, induction and supervision records, minutes from meetings,

medication records, policies and procedures and health and safety audits, staff rotas and training records. We also looked around the premises.

Updated 22 December 2016

This inspection took place on the 8, 9, & 10 November 2016 and was unannounced. Meadow Bank Care Home is registered to provide care for up to 110 older people including people living with dementia and people who require nursing care in four single storey units. Accommodation is in single fully furnished bedrooms and each unit has assisted bathing facilities, dining and lounge areas. The laundry services and kitchen facilities are centrally located within the administration block and main reception area.

There was a manager in post who had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to be registered as the manager for the service. The registration requirements for the provider stated the home should have a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

At the last inspection on 15 & 16 July 2014, we found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at the time.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.

People using the service told us they felt safe and well cared for. People had mixed views about the staffing levels but considered there were enough staff to support them when they needed any help.

The manager followed a robust recruitment procedure to ensure new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people and knew how to recognise signs of abuse. Arrangements were in place to make sure staff were trained and supervised at all times.

Medicines were managed safely and people had their medicines when they needed them. Regular checks on the management of medicines were carried out and action taken where shortfalls were identified. Staff administering medicines had been trained to do this safely.

Risks to people’s health and safety were identified and measures had been put into place to mitigate these risks. We asked the manager to carry out a risk assessment on the use of specialist high dependency easy chairs designed for people’s comfort as a safety precaution. These were being used by staff and relatives to the same effect as a wheelchair.

We found the premises to be clean and hygienic and appropriately maintained. Regular health and safety checks were carried out and equipment used was appropriately maintained.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people’s rights were protected where they were unable to make decisions for themselves. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and the principles of best interest decisions. Routine choices such as preferred daily routines and level of support from staff for personal care was acknowledged and respected.

People using the service had an individual care plan that was sufficiently detailed to ensure people were at the centre of their care. Care files included ‘My day, My life’ profile of people’s needs that set out what was important to each person.

People’s care and support was kept under review, and people were given additional support when they required this. Relevant health and social care professionals provided advice and support when people’s needs had changed.

We found staff were respectful to people, attentive to their needs and treated people with kindness in their day to day care. Care plans were written with sensitivity to reflect and to ensure basic rights such as dignity, privacy, choice, and rights were considered at all times.

Activities were varied, interesting and appropriate to individual needs. Links with the local community were good and being further developed.

People were provided with a nutritionally balanced diet that provided them with sufficient food and drink that catered for their dietary needs.

People using the service and relatives told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern with the registered manager and that it would be taken seriously and the right action taken.

People using the service, relatives and staff considered the management of the service was very good and they had confidence in the manager.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to ensure people received a good service that supported their health, welfare and well-being. Audits were completed regularly and the outcomes were monitored and reviewed.