• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Cedar Court Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

60 Moorland Road, Witney, Oxfordshire, OX28 6LG (01993) 703536

Provided and run by:
Life Style Care plc

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

8 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

At our last inspection in October 2013 we found breaches of regulations relating to respecting and involving people, how people’s care and welfare needs were met and infection control. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us what improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made. Improvements had been made and the breaches were now being met.

Cedar Court is a purpose built nursing home caring for up to 63 people who have care needs associated with physical needs, mental frailty and/or dementia. At the time of our visit 56 people were using the service, most of who were living with dementia. The home is owned and managed by Lifestyle Care.

People told us they were happy at the home. They said they felt well cared for and safe. However we saw one person’s care regarding their personal hygiene was not always managed appropriately. We also saw that accurate records were not being maintained in relation to the care provided. However, this did not impact on people’s care.

Some people were not appropriately supported to eat their meals and did not always receive the personalised support they needed. We observed some people were left alone at mealtimes when it was clear they needed support to eat and drink. However, other people were supported appropriately.

Throughout our visit we observed caring and supportive relationships between people and care staff. Most people were treated in a caring way that demonstrated a positive caring culture existed in the home.

The registered manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure. All of the people we spoke with knew how to make a complaint.

There were sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff on duty to support people. The manager had taken steps to reduce staff sickness and we saw from the attendance rota that improvements had been made.

People told us they felt their privacy and dignity were respected and made positive comments about staff. Care staff were able to tell us, and we saw, how they respected people’s privacy and promoted their dignity. Activities were enjoyed by people and we saw they were offered choices around activities and people who need it, were given the time to consider these choices.

Infection control concerns we raised at our last inspection had been addressed. The home was clean and free from malodours. Cleaning schedules were in place and were being followed and an infection control champion had been identified. An infection control champion is a member of care staff who receives additional training relating to infection control and acts as a source of information for other staff.

Care staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applied that knowledge appropriately. At the time of our visit no one was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application. This is where an application can be made to lawfully deprive a person of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. We spoke to the manager who told us that in light of the recent Supreme Court judgement they were assessing people with regard to future DoLS applications.

Care staff received training that enabled them to support people. They were also able to gain further training in specialist areas. For example, in dementia care, infection control and end of life care. 15 care workers had signed up to take further care qualifications.

People were supported to maintain good health. People had enough to eat and drink and appropriate referrals were made. For example, to GPs and Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) referrals were made where people were identified as being at risk of choking due to swallowing problems. People received support with regards to their tissue viability. Where people were at risk of pressure sores measures were put in place to reduce and manage the risk.

8 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited Cedar Court to see if the non-compliance identified during our last inspection in February 2013 had been addressed. We found evidence that people's nutrition needs were now being met, sufficient care staff were available and the provider was monitoring and measuring the quality of the service they provided.

However we found that concerns regarding people's care and welfare had not been fully addressed. We also found that the provider did not have adequate systems in place to manage the risk of infection. We observed that on the dementia unit people did not always have their independence promoted, their needs were not always considered and they were not always respected. We found that care provided on the nursing unit met people's needs. The provider may find it useful to note that the way care staff were being used within the home did not always meet all people's needs.

At the time of our visit there were 60 people living at Cedar Court. We spoke with four people and two relatives who told us they thought the home was caring and that they felt safe there. One said "I like it here. I feel safe and looked after". One relative said "I do not have any worries with my relative regarding safety, the care is good".

We spoke with seven care staff who said they enjoyed working at the home. One said "I feel supported, we get lots of training". Another said "it was bad but things have slowly got better".

19 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with in communal areas and in private said they were always treated with respect and staff were always kind.Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a polite and courteous manner.

During the inspection there was limited interaction between staff and people on the dementia care unit, other than those which were task orientated. We observed an activity session in the nursing unit which was flower arranging. It was noticeable that only a few people were able or wanted to join in. We were told by staff that there are no specific activities for people nursed in bed.

There was a stark difference between the monitoring of fluid intake in the dementia unit compared with the nursing unit. In the dementia unit we observed drinks that had been left for three people, one drink had been knocked over, the second one placed out of reach and the third drink had been spilt over the persons clothing.

We were able to see evidence of when safeguarding alerts had been raised. The management had taken the concerns seriously and conducted an investigation. Evidence was seen that the home liaised with the local authority safeguarding team.

We spoke with people who lived in the home, who told us the home was always kept fresh and clean.

We noted that staffing levels were frequently down to three care workers on duty, covering the two dementia care units and the same numbers on the nursing unit and young disabled unit.

18 November 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that staff respected their rights to privacy, dignity and choice and were helpful and kind. They said that they had comfortable rooms which were pleasantly furnished and decorated. They said that the home was always kept clean and well maintained.

People told us they knew they could go to the manager if they had a problem or concern and the matter would be dealt with effectively. They said that staff always respected their individuality and treated them kindly.