The Cedars

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment we rated the key question good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always ensure when people’s needs changed their care plans were updated.

Monthly reviews were undertaken of people’s care plans. Although these reviews had not identified where people needed individual risk assessments for mobility, equipment and medicines, or where best interest decisions and deprivation of liberty safeguards decisions information was lacking. We shared this feedback with the registered manager and provider so they could review improvements needed to people’s care plans and to how care plans were being reviewed.

Care plans contained important information about the person such as any hobbies and interests they had, who was important to them, any likes and dislikes and any communication needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards although some improvements were needed to ensure people had access to fluids.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. The registered manager and staff supported people to make choices about their care and support provided. People were encouraged to be independent with their hydration. Although during our inspection we found people did not always have drinks available to them. 2 people raised where improvements could be made to menu choices. For example, 1 person said they wanted more diabetic meal choices as these were not always available. They told us, “They could improve by getting diabetic food.” Another person raised they needed fluids provided so they could be independent themselves. We found they had nothing available they could drink out of. We observed some people did not always have access to a drink should they need this. People’s mealtime experience provided limited discussions such as what the meal was, if people were satisfied with their meal and if they wanted any more. We shared this feedback with the registered manager so they could review and take any action needed.

Care plans contained important information such as if the person had any allergies, nutrition and hydration needs and any associated risks. Staff encouraged people with healthy eating options and the registered manager sought people’s views on the meals provided through resident meetings.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People were supported by a registered manager and staff team that liaised and worked in partnership with health and social care professionals. Care plans contained important information about the person including any health diagnoses and any professionals supporting the person. The care home liaison nurse visited the service fortnightly and any changes to people’s health needs was discussed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to attend medical appointments and health reviews. If people required support, the registered manager confirmed they could provide staff support to attend these appointments. However, we received mixed feedback from relatives about people not always attending health appointments and a lack of updates afterwards. Positive feedback was provided from health care professionals who said staff were professional, supportive and liaised with them as needed. We raised the feedback we received from relatives with the registered manager so they could review this and take any action needed. People were supported to access the community such as going shopping and attending the local theatre.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Most people when asked if they were happy with their care and support from the service confirmed they were. We received feedback from 1 person who raised with us about concerns with certain aspects of their care and support. We raised this with the registered manager so they could liaise with the person directly. Relatives felt the care provided was good. They told us, “Care is good” and “Happy with the care and support provided.”

People were supported by staff who respected their choice and wishes. Care plans contained important information such as if the person had capacity to make decisions about their care and support. However, we found some improvements were needed where 1 person needed additional support to make decisions in their best interests. More information can be found in the quality statement of safeguarding. Details of any advocacy services were documented within people’s care plans.