You are here

Archived: Cedar House Care Home

The partners registered to provide this service have changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 April 2012
Date of Publication: 4 May 2012
Inspection Report published 4 May 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this regulation. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

User experience

We spoke with four people who use the service and asked about their understanding of the care and treatment choices available to them. They told us they maintained their independence and were satisfied with the care and support they received. They told us their needs were well met, staff respected their privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. One person said, “It’s really lovely here, I can’t fault the care, it’s very good.”

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. They told us they were involved and made decisions about their plan of care and the care they received. One person told us “It was only yesterday when I sat with my key worker and we went through the help I needed.”

People told us they were asked about their views about the quality of service they received. They said “we often have meetings and I think there’s one planned for next week” and ”I would be quite comfortable to tell my family if there was a problem. Alternatively, I know I could speak with my key worker.” One person also told us they had completed a survey about the home last year.

Other evidence

Our inspection of 23 August 2011 found people were not involved in the development of their plan of care or had opportunities to contribute their views about the service. The provider wrote to us and told us they would conduct a satisfaction survey, which would be shared with the people who use the service and other interested parties such as stakeholders.

We read the care files for five people and found they all contained information about their individual care and support needs, and their choice of lifestyle. We found the decisions and choices made by people about the support they needed were recorded in the care plans. Care plans were all signed by the individual or their representative.

Staff we spoke with showed a clear understanding of their responsibilities as key workers and how to support the people who use the service. They told us they involved people at the monthly review meetings to make sure people were satisfied with the support they received and would check if they needed any other support. Our conversation with two people who use the service confirmed this.

We saw notices were displayed about the next residents meeting planned on 18 April 2012.

We read the summary findings of the satisfaction survey carried out in September 2011. The responses showed people were satisfied with the quality of care, menus, social activities, living arrangements, staffing and the management of the service. There were no issues identified or areas for improvement at the service.