Meadows Edge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Staff treated people with kindness and dignity, although there were limited activities or opportunities for people to pursue their individual interests. Overall, relatives gave positive feedback about the care their family members received. People were given choices and were supported to maintain their independence where possible. Staff wellbeing was not always treated with priority; however, staff were encouraged to improve their knowledge and access further training.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback from relatives. One relative we spoke with told us they believed their family member was supported with kindness and respect, they told us, “This is a nice place to be, giving people the respect and dignity they deserve.” Another relative told us, “There was an activities co-ordinator who used to have things organised outside like fete’s but that’s all stopped. My relative tells me how lonely and sad they are, which breaks my heart. They do say they do a lot of activities but my relative doesn’t always want to take part and there’s no alternative motivation, interaction. My relative stays in one room where they just sit in a chair with no-one chatting to them.”

Staff understood the importance of treating people kindly and upholding their dignity. Staff treated people with respect at all times by ensuring they maintained people’s privacy and dignity. Some staff had a good understanding of the people they supported and knew how to meet their needs. However, new staff relied on existing staff knowledge and learning ‘along the way’ as care plans were not always up to date and included information that was no longer relevant. For example, people’s care plans had not been updated when they had been assessed as no longer having capacity. The manager had identified that training was required for staff recording information, as they sometimes used unprofessional language. This is also reported on in our past inspection reports.

A visiting health professional observed staff being kind and caring to people. They did not share any concerns with us about how people were supported.

People were not supported in a secure and attractive environment. The provider had not ensured the building was maintained to a high standard and although ongoing building work was being carried out, no consideration had been given to ensuring the environment was maintained appropriately for the people who lived there. For example, a large amount of debris had been thrown onto the gardens and we observed rubbish in the car park. This posed risks to people's health and safety due to the potential trip hazards but also meant they were not treated with respect or valued due to the exposure to untidy surroundings. The environment was not always designed with the needs of people living with dementia or other cognitive impairments in mind. Although there were some signs to aid people’s understanding, these were often not easily visible to people as they had been mounted high on walls and doors. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff showed kindness, patience and had a good understanding of people’s preferences.

Some people made choices directed staff on how they wanted to be supported. It was not always evident through monitoring information if people were consistently supported to make their individual needs and preferences understood. For example, daily notes were focussed on what tasks had been completed and not how people were supported to be part of their support.

Staff told us they understood the importance of ensuring people’s religious or cultural needs were supported, however explained there was no one living at the service who had a faith. Staff explained they had people from different countries who liked to eat food from their culture that family would bring in when they visited. We did not observe at mealtimes any different meals being made to support people’s individual tastes, although we were told people could request something different if they wanted. Staff told us some people liked to maintain their femininity through their choice of clothing and painting their nails. They told us how they regularly supported them with that.

We observed people being encouraged to take a lead with their mobility and at mealtimes. Staff showed patience and empathy and had a good knowledge of people’s abilities.

We saw a range in the quality of information in people’s care plans. One person’s care plan documented their individual preferences clearly alongside what they were able to do and what they needed support with. However, we reviewed another care plan with minimal meaningful information, which meant it was difficult to get an overview of that person. For example, there was no information in a person’s pain assessment on whether the person would tell staff if they were in pain, or what signs to look out for to identify the person was in pain. Care plans were not always up to date with the most recent information, even though they stated they had been reviewed.

The relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care their family member was receiving.

Staff understood people’s wish to maintain their independence and encouraged people to make decisions when possible. Additionally, staff knew it was important to always ensure they got people’s permission or consent. Staff supported people in line with their preferences, for example, if a person indicated they didn't want support with personal care they would wait a little while and then offer their help again.

We observed people being supported in line with their preferences. Some people were able to show how they wanted to be supported and staff were seen to adapt to ensure care and support was in line with what they were indicating. Staff actively encouraged people to eat by offering them alternative options or suggesting mealtimes were attempted a little later, which showed a mutual respect and understanding.

People’s individual needs and preferences were not always clearly documented in their care plans. Care plans were not always up to date with information on how people were being supported. For example, a person was choosing not to eat at a table and had to be fully supported by staff. The manager told us this had changed in the last 2 weeks; however, the care plan stated the person ate independently, at a particular table with no staff support. People’s daily notes recorded by staff did not show if choice was offered or how they encouraged and supported people to be involved in their care and support. Daily notes only recorded what tasks had been completed with people and did not evidence that staff were consistently offering choice and encouraging independence. Care plans did include information on what people could do and what they required support with which encouraged them to engage more in their own lives and improve on existing skills. The provider supported family visits and there were no restrictions for visitors.

People told us staff came and supported them when they called for help. A relative told us staff had been responsive to their family members’ needs when they had first moved in, which had improved their quality of life.

Staff were reactive to people when they thought they were in pain. They told us when people could not communicate their needs, they observed people’s facial expressions or body language to know whether they needed to offer their support.

We observed staff during a mealtime, regularly checking people’s comfort and asking if there was anything they required. We observed staff assisting people with their meals. We heard staff ask people if they would like help with meals and with accessing other areas. When people indicated they wanted to go out and smoke, staff supported them to do this.

Staff wellbeing was promoted and they received support from the management team when they needed it. Staff told us there was no requirement to do additional hours or shifts and they had a good work/life balance. The provider completed all supervisions for staff and had focused on identifying their strengths so they could be utilised better in the home. When asked about staff wellbeing, the manager told us they asked how staff were in supervisions. The manager encouraged staff to have aspirations so they could support them to achieve these by providing additional training.

The provider did not have systems or processes to monitor staff wellbeing. The manager told us they monitored staff sickness and turnover by reviewing the staff rotas. They explained how they were planning to implement a more robust system to monitor and manage this although it was not a priority due to the other improvements required in the home. Staff had received recent supervisions and were asked if there were any personal issues that could affect work. When staff indicated there were personal issues, there was no further evidence of provider support. In an audit completed by the manager they had identified that the quality of staff supervisions needed to be improved. The manager operated an open-door policy, so staff were able to talk with them at any point or make requests if required to better their working arrangements.