Meadway Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how care was delivered that was personalised to meet people’s needs and preferences.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records contained information about people, their needs and preferences. However, this information was not consistent across all care plans to ensure relevant guidance around personalised care was available for staff. Care records did not demonstrate that personalised care was being given in line with care plans around personal care, repositioning and the application of creams. Overall, people and families told us they were happy with the support provided and some spoke very highly of specific members of the team. However, staff fed back they were always very busy, with one staff member commenting, “We don’t get enough time to spend time with the residents meaningfully. We are always on the go. I miss being able to spend time with them and you get to know the resident better.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

It was not aways clear that staff worked effectively with other professionals to meet people’s needs and we received mixed feedback from visiting professionals. There were limited opportunities for people to be able to access the local community but the home worked closely with other organisations to promote inter-generational activities, for example, through the running of a music and movement group with preschool children. People living at the home appeared to enjoyed these opportunities.

The provider was able supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Management team understood the accessible information standards and were able to explain how they had previously supported people with specific communication needs. The provider had processes to ensure information could be adapted as needed. However, there was a lack of pictorial information to promote and encourage choice.

The provider had processes for people to share feedback and ideas but these were not consistently used.

The provider had recently completed a survey and was reviewing the responses to develop an action plan. People and families told us they felt able to raise concerns and felt that these would generally be addressed. However, it was not clear that people or families were involved in developing, or reviewing, plans of care. Due to changes in management, the continuity of meetings with people and their families had not always taken place. The new manager had several plans to develop communication with families and ensure people and families were involved as much as possible in any discussion and decisions about the home.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and complaints were investigated and responded to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed.

The provider generally supported people to access the care and support they needed and arranged for professionals, including podiatrist and hairdresser to attend the service and support people. We received feedback that there were some areas for improvement within the home. One family member commented, “I would like to see more physiotherapy and opportunities to stand and walk with support.” Another relative commented “It would be good to see subtitles on the TV.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

It was not evident that people living with dementia were encouraged to live a full life and we observed times where staff would restrict where people could spend time in order to keep them safe and there were limited opportunities for one to one activity. The provider promoted diversity and as part of the recruitment processes asked staff about responding to people with specific protected characteristic.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and families were generally supported to have early discussions on how to support people during their time at Meadway Court, including if a person was approaching the end of their life. Information about people’s preferences was available to staff, including any decisions in relation to resuscitation. Staff told us they worked with the district nurse team to ensure people were kept comfortable and any discomfort was managed. Staff had completed training around supporting people approaching the end of their life.