Meadway Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were kind and caring, One person commented, “Staff are very pleasant and helpful.” A relative commented, “There is a great atmosphere. Staff are very knowledgeable and friendly.” People’s dignity was respected, with people being supported with their personal care needs discreetly by staff. Overall, we observed positive interactions between staff and people.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were not always receiving care that reflected their strengths, abilities and aspirations. Feedback from people and families was that there was not always enough to do. One family member commented, “My family member loves dominos. It would be good if they had the opportunity to do that.” Another family member commented, “I have not seen many activities that my family member would be able to join with.” However, other relatives gave positive feedback and the provider shared evidence of themed days run within the home and an example where the activity lead had worked with a person to enable them to go swimming again.

Care plans contained good detail about people’s life history but this was not always translated into guidance and action for staff. We observed staff were often busy and did not have time to spend with people. People fed back staff were often busy and staff stated they would like to have ‘more time to spend getting to know people’.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans varied in quality but did contain some information about what people could do for themselves to guide staff on how to promote independence. However, care records did not contain sufficient detail to demonstrate these care plans were being followed and independence was not always promoted. One person told us, “Everything is done for you. You have space and can walk around but I feel restricted.” However, another person commented, “I do as much as I can for myself.” We observed people had mixed experiences of how choice and independence was promoted by staff.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback about how staff responded to people’s immediate needs. One person commented, “I can wait a long time for the staff to answer the call bell, especially in the evening.” However, a relative commented, “The staff have got to know [family member] needs and are able to diffuse any anxiety, the staff are very knowledge in dealing with dementia.”

There was limited evidence that people were involved in decisions about their care. The provider told us they had begun a resident of the day scheme and as part of this process, feedback would be obtained from people and families. This would include a review of their care on a monthly basis.

Call bell responses were monitored and we noted there were several occasions where people were left waiting for a period of time. The provider told us their staffing levels were in line with their dependency tool but it was not always easy to find assistance from a staff member within the home.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had a number of initiatives to improve staff wellbeing including wellbeing newsletters, mental health first aiders and ‘Brew Monday’. Staff spoke positively about these initiatives and told us they felt supported by the provider. One staff member commented, “Some of the things they do are great. Today they looked at blood pressure. It’s great as not all staff would go to the doctor for these things.”