You are here

Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 June 2017

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 11 and 18 April 2017. The service was last inspected in April 2015 and was rated as good.

Cedric House is registered to provide accommodation to people living with dementia who require personal care and support. The service is registered to accommodate up to 20 people. At the time of the inspection visit there were 18 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post within the service, who had been registered with the CQC since March 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered provider specialises in supporting people living with dementia, however we found some aspects of the service that would benefit from some improvement. For example the environment would benefit from consideration around how it could be made more dementia friendly, and the use of therapy dolls needs to be carried out in line with best practice. We have made a recommendation to the registered provider around supporting people who live with dementia.

Audit systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided. However an accurate record of complaints was not being maintained by the registered manager. This meant that common themes or trends in complaints could not be identified to prevent issues from reoccurring again in the future. Other aspects of the service that were audited to a good standard included medication and the management of falls.

During meal times the majority of people enjoyed the food presented, whereas some people did not appear to enjoy what had been offered. Alternative options were not always made available. However, people received special diets where needed and appropriate action was taken to refer people to the relevant health professionals where they were at risk of weight-loss. This helped to protect people from the risk of malnutrition. We raised this with the registered manager so that this could be addressed with staff.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the different signs of abuse and how to report any concerns they may have. The registered provider had a whistleblowing policy and procedure in place which staff were familiar with. This enabled staff to report concerns inside or outside the service without fear of reprisals.

Accidents and incidents were being monitored by the registered manager, and appropriate action was being taken in response to these. Where people were at high risk of falls and had experienced multiple falls they had been referred to the appropriate health professional for support.

Recruitment processes were robust and ensured that staff employed were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. Appropriate checks had been carried out prior to new staff starting which helped the registered manager make decisions regarding the suitability of applicants.

People had been supported to take their medication as prescribed. Medication was administered safely, and staff signed medication administration charts (MARs) to show that this had been given as required. Clear instructions were available for staff around when medicines should be administered.

People’s rights and liberties were being protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We observed positive examples where staff gave people the option of making choices for themselves. The registered manager was aware of those family members who had the legal power to make decisions on people’s behalf, and people’s care records reflected their cognitive and mental abilities.

Staff were kind and caring towards people and positive relationships had developed between them. Family members commented positively on staff and told us that they were made to feel welcome when they visited the service. Staff acted appropriately to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.

People each had an individual care record which outlined what staff needed to do to support them. These were personalised and contained information regarding their likes, dislikes and personal preferences. This helped ensure staff knew what support to provide to people.

There were activities available for people such as bingo, entertainment and arts and crafts. The local church visited the service on a Sunday so that people had the option of participating in a service and taking communion if they wished to do so.

An annual survey was carried out by the registered provider to establish the views of people using the service, their families, and external professionals. The feedback given had been positive. Where suggestions had been made to help improve the service the registered manager had acted upon these.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and how to report any concerns they may have.

Accidents and incidents were monitored and appropriate action taken to keep people safe.

Recruitment processes were robust and helped ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.



Updated 15 June 2017

The service was effective.

We have recommended that the registered provider look further into best practice around supporting people living with dementia.

A majority of people had a positive meal time experience, however alternative options were not readily available.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals where required.



Updated 15 June 2017

The service was caring.

Positive relationships had developed between people and staff.

Staff acted to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s confidentiality was protected.



Updated 15 June 2017

The service was responsive.

An accurate record of complaints was not kept in line with the registered provider’s own complaints policy.

Care records were personalised and contained clear information regarding the support that staff should provide to people.

Activities were available for people to participate in.



Updated 15 June 2017

The service was well-led.

An accurate record of complaints had not been kept which prevented the registered provider from identifying patterns and trends.

Quality monitoring processes were effective at identifying issues in other areas, and appropriate action was taken to rectify any issues identified.

Survey’s had been completed with people and their family members to ascertain their views on the service.