Meadow Park

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

We observed kind, caring and positive interactions between patients and staff, with positive statements from patients that reinforced this view.

Patients reported staff to be friendly and caring. Patients said they would sometimes use staff to convey their opinions and thoughts if they did not attend the multi-disciplinary team meetings.

Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about the patients in their care, and this was reflected in their observed interactions and in review of case notes and care records.

Community meeting minutes were detailed and showed that patient involvement in the service was key. The meetings followed an agenda that gave patients the opportunity to make good comments and to complain if they needed to, with each aspect considered fully.

We reviewed notes of multi-disciplinary meetings that clearly showed full consideration of the patient experience, and the role of the patient to improve that experience. Carer input was fully welcomed at the service. There was an annual carers survey and quarterly events for carer at the service.

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 Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We spoke with six people who were using the service. Overall, patients were positive about staff and their own involvement in care and treatment. Patients told us they either attended their weekly multi-disciplinary team meeting or had staff represent their views. One patient outlined how he did not like to attend the meeting and asked the nurse in charge to put his views forward, he trusted the staff. Patients generally reported staff to be friendly and caring. They told us they could speak to staff if they needed to. Patients told us that their families were in contact, and this was encouraged by the service.

Patients told us they had access to advocacy when needed. They described what they would like on discharge from the service, although some patients admitted that their demands might not be met as they were overly optimistic. Patients said there was a lot to do at the service, some patients particularly liked the baking lessons in the kitchen.

Some patients commented on previous hospital admissions, stating that they were very happy with Meadow Park and their treatment at the service. Patients told us that they could get access to a GP or the hospital if it was required. Some patients said there was not enough storage space for all their things, and would like a personal refridgerator in their rooms, but accepted that there were limits to personal space in a hospital.

Staff confirmed patients were able to visit the ward before their admission and given information on the service and what they could expect. Rehabilitation goals were first set in one to one sessions with the patient. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment – regular ward rounds, one to one sessions with their named nurse, this was confirmed in care records as was patient involvement in care planning. Staff stated there was a choice of treatment available and that some patients had their treatment changed because they were not happy. Patients could access advocacy services.

Staff considered patient communication needs. Information could be given in easy read format. Staff supported patients that had difficulties with literacy to complete their complaint forms. Staff also considered who is the best person to give and discuss information to patients. Patients had access to complaint and compliment forms and could also provide verbal feedback. We saw evidence of recording of this.

Staff told us that patients had been involved in interview panels for new staff. There were monthly service user forum where patients were encouraged to fill out patient surveys.

Staff reported that relatives were invited to attend and take part in ward rounds and other meetings. Family members and carers could submit complaints and compliments. They could also give verbal feedback. Information was shared with family members if the patient consented. Relatives were given information about the service and pathway. The service ran carers events where carers could have a coffee and a chat. Staff and patients had compiled a joint Mutual Expectations Document that was available on site.

Minutes from February 2024 external group meeting showed relevant consideration of care at the service, and displayed various aspects of quality assurance and other audit and joint working. There was a full section devoted to the patient experience, this included embedded documents outlining patient feedback, family and carer feedback, complaints. advocacy access was audited as well as care plan involvement and update. The use of therapy activity plans was also included, giving assurance about the options available and the uptake for activities by patients.

We reviewed several months' worth of community meeting minutes from the service. A set agenda was followed, and the participant numbers showed good attendance by patients at the service. Actions from the previous meetings was tabled, one showing that a proposed "Chinese Night" had been actioned and would take place the next week, and patients were looking forward to it. The nursing team started each meeting with an opening joke, to lighten the mood and set the tone for the meeting. Successes were discussed, patients were allowed to say what was happening that they were happy about: one patient was due for discharge, had been to a property and was excited for the next stage of their journey.

Any suggestions regarding the service environment and possible improvement was considered, patients put forward their thoughts, the majority feeling that they were happy with the service. Most of the meetings were aimed at getting feedback that was both positive and negative, with a view to improving the service for patients. There was a patient representative who could speak on the behalf of those present and not present, and it was clear that any feedback given was duly considered.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.