Acorn 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

We assessed 1 quality statement under this key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. Feedback was positive about the way people were treated and the care they received. The service had an inclusive culture.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

People and their relatives were generally positive about the way the home was managed. Feedback was positive about the way people were treated and the care they received. Most relatives felt they did not need to attend a relatives’ meeting, as they regularly spoke to the manager when they visited, who was always accessible. Feedback was encouraged and feedback was submitted through on-line review sites, some of which was very positive.

Staff feedback indicated the service had an inclusive culture. One staff member told us their experience was positive and said, “I can talk to everybody here, I feel included.” Another told us, “I would bring my mother here. I've been to different homes and seen others, this place is the best for me.” Staff considered people’ s accessibility needs. One staff member told us how they communicated with a person who was deaf and were chatting to them using a write on board. They demonstrated a person centred and compassionate approach.

Policies were in place in relation to equality and diversity. Care Plans were person centred and contained information about people’s lives and preferences. However, most people spoken with said they had not seen their care plans. Relatives told us they had been involved in initial assessments and some had shared “All about me” information. There was a resident of the day system, which ensured each person was reviewed on a regular basis. Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs and there were processes in place to keep them informed of changes. There were processes in place to ensure managers sought feedback from people. Managers were looking at alternative ways to gather feedback from people to involve them in decision making. Information regarding the home could be obtained in various formats such as different languages and braille. The home had recently been refurbished and was well presented with clear themes. However, we noted a difference in the layout of upstairs and downstairs lounge areas. The downstairs lounge was smaller with less space for people, some people were seated in the corridor area. We raised this with the registered manager for further review.

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.