You are here

Archived: Cedar Lodge Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

We inspected Cedar Lodge on the 15 February 2016.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to eight people with learning disabilities. There were eight people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Due to their complex needs some people found it difficult to communicate with us verbally. To help us gather views we also spoke with people’s relatives.

The service has a registered manager in post. 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.

People were cared for by staff that had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks were completed. There were enough staff available to support people.

Records were regularly updated and staff were provided with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff were able to explain to us what they would do to keep people safe and how they would protect their rights. Staff had been provided with training in safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were relaxed in the company of staff. Staff were able to demonstrate they knew people well. Staff were attentive to people's needs and treated people with dignity and respect.

People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them, these activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs.

The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. Where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including people’s G.Ps and other health professionals.

Relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint, any complaints were resolved efficiently and quickly.

The manager had a number of ways of gathering views on the service including holding meetings with people, staff and talking with relatives.

The manager and provider carried out a number of quality monitoring audits to ensure the service was running effectively. These included audits on medication management, finance and the environment.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

The service was safe.

Staff took measures to keep people safe.

Staff were recruited and employed after appropriate checks were completed. The service had the correct level of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Medication was stored appropriately and dispensed in a timely manner when people required it.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were supported when they came to work at the service as part of their induction. Staff attended various training courses to support them to deliver care and fulfil their role.

People’s food choices were responded to and there was adequate diet and nutrition available.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when they needed to see them.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and how to support their independence. Staff showed compassion towards people.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were individualised to meet people’s needs. There were varied activities to support people’s social and well-being needs. People were supported to access activities in the local community.

Complaints and concerns were responded to in a timely manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2016

The service was well led.

Staff felt valued and were provided with the support and guidance to provide a high standard of care and support.

There were systems in place to seek the views of people who used the service and others and to use their feedback to make improvements.

The service had a number of quality monitoring processes in place to ensure the service maintained its standards.