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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this regulation. The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

User experience

People who use the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment they received. People told us they had a key worker and were involved in the review of their care needs. One person said “It was only yesterday when I sat with my key worker and we went though the help I needed.”

People who use the service had the opportunity to attend the ‘residents meeting’. One person said “We often have meetings and I think there’s one planned for next week” and “I think I’ll ask about the variety of meals at the next meeting.” We saw notices displayed in the communal areas about the resident’s meeting planned on 18 April 2012.

People told us they had completed a survey questionnaire about the service last year. They were asked a series of questions about the quality of care received, staff conduct, meals, standard of décor and cleanliness and complaints. People told us they were confident to complain if there was a problem or issue. One person said “I would be quite comfortable to tell my family if there was a problem. Alternatively I know I could speak with my key worker.”

Other evidence

Our inspection of 23 August 2011 found there was a lack of effective quality assurance systems in place to assess the quality of service people received. The provider wrote to us and told us they would review all the quality monitoring systems including care planning and management of risk, management of staff training and conduct a survey.

We found a new care planning systems was in place, reviewed monthly or sooner when people’s needs changed and risks were assessed and managed. We found people’s care were monitored and checked frequently.

A quality assurance survey was carried out in September 2011. The results were positive and showed people were satisfied with the quality of care they received. There were positive responses in relation to the quality of care, menus, social activities, living arrangements and cleanliness, conduct of staff and the management of the service and how to complain. The provider told us the results were shared at the resident’s meeting and displayed on the notice board at the entrance to the service. There were no areas for improvement identified from the survey.

We found the provider conducts monthly visits to the service and had carried out audits on the environment including equipment and décor, care records, management of medicating and accident and incidents. We read the audit for the visit carried out on 2 April 2012, which was thorough and identified areas of improvement and timescales to address the issues. We also looked at the medication audit conducted on 29 March 2012. The audit was thorough and the medicines were checked against the medicine records. The audit showed two discrepancies were found and the actions included reminder to all staff and to monitor practice. A further audit was carried out on 2 April 2012 and found no repeated discrepancies or any new issues.

The service received no new complaints. The service received a number of cards and letters of thanks from the relatives of people who used the service. We read a card from a relative which stated “Thank you for the exemplary care provided to ……at Cedar House Care Home.”