Meadowcroft is a care home providing accommodation for up to 71 people who require nursing or personal care. The home accommodates some people who are living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 69 people living at the home. We spoke with seven people who used the service, five relatives and twelve staff. These included nursing, care, housekeeping and kitchen staff. We observed care and treatment and looked at eight care records. We also carried out a short observation framework for inspection (SOFI). A SOFI is used to capture the experiences of people who use the service who may not be able to express this for themselves.
Two inspectors carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
This is a summary of what we found;
Is the service safe?
There was no evidence that care was not safe. However, we found people's care records, risk assessments and care plans were incomplete. This meant that people were not always protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment arising from a lack of proper information about them.
People were treated with respect by the staff, their dignity upheld and their independence promoted.
There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. There was emergency lighting and plans for managing the person's needs in the event of a power failure. Each person had an emergency evacuation plan for use in the event of a fire.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and care workers learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was aware of the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and would take appropriate action if a person required a DoLS.
Is the service effective?
Effectiveness relates to how well the planned care works for people. Because record keeping was not always complete it was not possible to assess if planned care was always effective. People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. We found that staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.
People received a well-balanced diet and were involved in choosing what they ate. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided. One person told us 'the food is good'. During lunch people said the food was 'lovely' and 'the carrots are very nice'. A relative told us 'the food is excellent'. Specialist dietary needs had been assessed and catered for. People were assisted to eat and drink if required.
Is the service caring?
The home was caring. People we spoke with were complementary about the care they received. One person said, "It's a lovely home I'm very well cared for'. Another said, 'I couldn't be better cared for, they are a smashing lot'. A relative told us, "very, very caring, absolutely no concerns. I know I don't have to worry about mum. Staff are so caring they make eye contact and 'capture' mum even if it's only for a moment'. Another relative said, 'first class, couldn't be better'. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with nurses and care workers that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.
Throughout our inspection the atmosphere was calm and pleasant. We observed the way that nursing staff spoke with people was warm, friendly and polite.
Is the service responsive?
The home was responsive. People's needs had been assessed before and on admission to the unit. We saw evidence that nurses and care workers recognised when a person's condition changed or their health had deteriorated and sought the help and advice of the medical team or other professionals. This meant that the service responded to peoples changing needs.
Is the service well-led?
The service was well led. There was a registered manager in post who was visible and available for people and staff to raise any concerns. We saw that the provider took account of complaints, comments and feedback to improve the service. During our inspection we looked at the quality assurance systems that were in place. The information reviewed demonstrated that the service was monitored on a consistent basis to ensure that people experienced safe and appropriate support, care and treatment.