Streets Meadow

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People told us staff knew them and their likes and dislikes well. We observed many individual interactions with people and staff, offering choices and supporting preferences.

People told us there were enough staff to support them with their care and support. Staff told us the provider responded to concerns when they raised them.

People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the registered manager.

Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the home, and this was supported by training and ongoing monitoring.

This service scored 64 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us staff knew them and their likes and dislikes well. We observed many individual interactions with people and staff, offering choices and supporting people’s preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us they could access the care they required and felt confident they could ask for support from staff. This included having staff support to see their doctor or the visiting nurse. One person said, “They get the doctor if I need one. Staff are good to me.” However, two healthcare professionals described their varied experiences as being; "The majority of staff are absolutely amazing carers, very organized, especially the staff who have worked at Streets Meadow for several years." Another healthcare professional said they; "Encounter mixed experience of whether or not staff are knowledgeable and aware of the individual that [we] have been asked to see. Some staff have no idea about the persons symptoms, whereas others are very aware and helpful." We fed back to the registered manager who told us they would ensure appropriate staff were available to assist health and social care professionals’ visits.

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

Staff understood people’s communication needs and informed us they were able to provide information in a way people understood by following communication preferences set out in individual care plans.

Streets Meadow met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service’s complaints policy was on display throughout the home and shared in residents’ meetings. Systems were in place to ensure people could feedback on the care they received, and we were assured from speaking to people this feedback was acted upon. 

People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the registered manager. A relative said; “I would go to the main office and speak to the duty officers on that day or speak to one of the carers.”

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

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

People were able to move throughout the home freely, with reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for people living with dementia. The provider acted on feedback to improve communication and relationships with professionals, which prevented delay in people accessing care. A health and social care professional told us, “The registered manager has worked hard to improve communication, especially with the local GP surgeries and relevant people to ensure people have the treatment they need, when they need it.” Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminated against people. Staff training, guidance and monitoring meant staff were consistently reminded of their responsibilities to always ensure inclusivity. Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the home, and this was supported by training and ongoing monitoring.

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.

Staff used screening tools to monitor people’s health and identify pain. This information was shared with health and social care professionals working in partnership with the service to ensure care was delivered in line with the persons wishes in their last days. The provider had received accreditation for good practices in end of life care. The service had an end of life champion, a dedicated member of staff who had completed additional training and guidance. This meant they were able to support end of life care within the service and provide support for people, their relatives and staff. Their responsibilities included reviewing care given by staff to ensure it was in accordance with the persons wishes and the best it could be. A healthcare professional told us; "End of life care is very, very good, symptoms controlled, and I am assured a member of staff will always be allocated time to spend with the person to ensure they are not alone."