Meadows

People's experience of using this service: People at the service achieved good outcomes and had good relationships with the staff who supported them.

The registered manager had left in 2018 and the service was being run by two directors. Shortly after our inspection one of the directors applied to become registered manager. This had been an unsettled period at the service, however we found the provider was focused on making things better for people by improving communication and the management culture. A committed and settled staff team had helped to ensure impact on people from the changes at the service was minimised.

Since our last inspection, concerns had been raised that people living at the service were at risk of financial abuse. The provider had acted swiftly and effectively in response; however, we were concerned measures had not been in place to pick up the risk to people in a timely manner. Audits and checks had now improved and the provider had better oversight of what was going on at the service.

Staff were committed and diligent about supporting people safely and knew what to do if they were concerned a person was at risk. The recent changes at the service, such as the new audits, were helping to improve systems which kept people safe. There were effective systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

The property was well maintained with systems in place to reduce the risk of infection. Specialist adaptations and equipment supported people who were deaf or hearing impaired.

There were enough safely recruited staff at the service. Staff were well supported and trained. The provider promoted an inclusive staffing team where individual staff members diverse needs were respected.

Staff worked well with external professionals to promote peoples' health and wellbeing. People made choices about what they ate and drank and received the necessary support to manage any specialist nutritional needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff communicated effectively with people, using a variety of communication methods, including BSL. They

knew people well and provided care in a person-centred, flexible manner. Staff had sensitively considered people's needs should they require end of life care.

There were systems in place to support people to complain. The provider had increased their visibility to give people, families and staff more opportunities to raise concerns.