Meadow Park

Updated 29 June 2018

Meadow Park Treatment and Recovery Centre is situated in Ellesmere Port and sits within the Cheshire region of the Alternative Futures Group provider structure.

Meadow Park is a 20-bed treatment and recovery centre run by an independent provider for both male and female adults between the ages of 18 and 65, providing rehabilitation to people with severe and/or enduring mental illness. The service may be described as a high dependency rehabilitation unit. The treatment pathway averages 18 months but varies depending on a person’s own journey of recovery. Patients were either detained under the Mental Health Act or informally admitted. At the time of inspection, there were 19 patients in the hospital, one of whom was informally admitted. A Mental Health Act review was carried out in March 2017, the findings of which were dealt with by an action plan.

The hospital is registered to carry out the following regulated services:

• treatment of disease, disorder or injury
• assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act
• diagnostic and screening procedures.

Meadow Park has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since 21 December 2010. There have been five inspections carried out at the location, the most recent taking place on 18 April 2016. The hospital was rated as good during its last inspection. There were no regulatory breaches requiring action at the last inspection.

There is a registered manager as well as a nominated individual for the location.

Updated 29 June 2018

We rated Meadow Park as good because:

• Concave mirrors situated in the ceiling allowed full view of the corridors, thereby allowing staff to observe all parts of the ward. Ligature points were noted during the inspection, and the environmental risk and assessment plan showed that these points were considered and action was in place to address issues. The hospital furniture was well maintained, the hospital itself was very clean. Staffing levels were good, and followed policy. Care plans showed evidence of positive risk taking on the part of the staff at Meadow Park.
• Patient care plans were comprehensive, personalised, holistic, and recovery orientated. Each patient had signed that they agreed with their care plans. Positive behavioural support plans were in place. There was evidence of patient involvement in all aspects of their care. There was evidence that staff participated actively in clinical audit. Staff were regularly supervised and appraised. Discharge planning was evident in care records and case files. There was active physical health monitoring at Meadow Park, with a registered general nurse employed to take the physical health lead. Mental Health Act documentation was in order and audited. There was training in the Mental Capacity Act.
• We saw staff interacting with patients at Meadow Park, and it was clear that there were good relationships. Patients stated that staff were respectful, approachable, and interested in patient well-being. Staff were clearly knowledgeable about their patients, and this was reflected in their interaction and notes on case files. Patients commented favourably on the available activities, their named nurses and their plans for the future.
• Patients who were on leave did not have their beds filled in their absence, ensuring the bed was available on return. Patients had access to their bedrooms, and could securely lock the room. There was access to a telephone with a privacy hood, as well as patients having their own mobile telephones. On admission to Meadow Park, patients completed a questionnaire relating to dietary requirements. Likes and dislikes, allergies, and religion were considered.
• Staff knew senior managers; both qualified staff and support workers said that senior managers visited the hospital. Staff used key performance indicators to gauge and improve performance. Clinical audit was being carried out with full staff involvement. Staff felt they could raise concerns without fear of victimisation, and morale was reported as being high among staff. We saw evidence of good team working, and there was a high level of support from the hospital manager and senior staff.
• However
• Although patients had signed to agree with their care plans, there was no evidence to show that patients had received a copy of the care plan. Some patients told us they did not have copies, but that they were involved in the production, so they knew what the care plan entailed.
• Psychologist input was initiated through a service level agreement, but we could not fully determine the levels of input by the psychologist; guidance suggests 0.4 whole time equivalent for a psychologist in a 14-bedded unit, and Meadow Park is a 20-bedded unit.
• There was one full-time Occupational therapist at Meadow Park, a 20-bedded unit. This is the accepted guidance for a 14-bedded unit, and it was felt that an occupational therapy assistant could be utilised to ensure therapies were fully utilised.

Updated 29 June 2018