The Meadows Nursing Home

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

We looked at 1 quality statement under the Responsive Caring key question: Person-centred care. At our last inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 9 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People were not always treated well or respected as an individual. Not enough improvement had been made at this assessment. People’s needs and preferences were not always met, and people were not involved in discussions about their own care. This was a continued breach of Regulation 9 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people told us their care was not delivered in a way that met their preferences. Staff did not always provide reassurance and guidance when supporting people. For example, on 2 occasions we saw a member of staff administering medicines to 2 different people, on each occasion, the member of staff did not greet the person or explain they had come to give them their medicines. One person told us, “I can’t even get a full wash, they just haven’t got the time and don’t want to do it”. Another person said, “I haven’t done anything for a long time, there’s nothing here to do”.

A staff member told us, “They [staff] are not carrying out basic needs, people are left in bed and staff do not seem to understand individual needs”. The staff member gave an example that staff did not always support people with oral care.

During our visit we observed that care plans and support provided were not person-centred. There was a lack of interaction and activity to prevent people from becoming socially isolated. Care records did not evidence that people received regular oral care. We saw evidence in multiple people’s bedrooms of toothbrushes which were dry and hard. Where information about people’s past history had been obtained, this was not always shared in the care plans. For example, one person, had religious items in their room. One section of their care plan mentioned they were a dedicated Christian. However, the front page of their care file ‘about me’ was blank. Their end-of-life care plan only mentioned what was in their ReSPECT form. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. The ReSPECT process creates a summary of personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency in which they do not have capacity to make or express choices. Such emergencies may include death or cardiac arrest, but are not limited to those events. The process is intended to respect both patient preferences and clinical judgement. The agreed realistic clinical recommendations that are recorded include a recommendation on whether or not CPR should be attempted if the person’s heart and breathing stop. People’s needs were not always identified, for example we saw one person was struggling to eat their lunch, the Inspector requested they were provided with a plate guard and adaptive cutlery to make it easier for them to eat independently. Whilst this was provided when we returned, we found the equipment had not been provided at mealtimes and the person’s care plan had not been updated. Care plans and risk assessment were not regularly reviewed. Improvements were required to ensure care records were accurate and up to date so that people’s needs were accurately reflected.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.