Cedar Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People told us they had autonomy over their routines and relatives told us their loved ones received care and support which was personalised to them. One person told us, “The staff know me quite well.” Relatives told us, "I like that they know [relative] and me, they are welcoming, they know what they are like" and "They have a very good work to standard, they put residents first, they banter with the residents.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Records of people’s care needs were kept so they could be shared with other professionals if needed, and hospital passports were in place to ensure relevant information was passed over if people are admitted to hospital.

On the first day of the assessment staff undertook ‘Restore’ training. This supported staff to recognise physical deterioration of a person who is presenting as unwell, and to escalate any concerns to support unplanned admissions to hospital.

People were supported by a consistent core staff team. The staff team worked predominantly on 1 of the 2 units to ensure consistency for the people they supported. The manager told us agency staff were not used. This promoted familiarity and continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans had a section on ‘Senses and Communication’. This provided details to staff on how to communicate with people to ensure they understand. People told us staff communicated clearly and consistently, explaining what they were doing and checking people were comfortable before proceeding. One person told us, “The staff are very helpful, they ask consent and explain what they are going to do before they do it."

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Processes in place included satisfaction surveys, resident’s meetings and a newsletter. Most people told us they were involved through meetings and had been involved in care planning. Comments included, "They have resident’s meetings, but not regularly, I have a care plan, and it is reviewed. If I had a concern, I would speak to a senior member of staff" and "We had a questionnaire about 6 months ago” and “I have been given a questionnaire to complete.”

Relatives told us they felt involved and were kept informed about changes in health or incidents. Comments included, "They are very caring. If anything happens e.g., they have a fall, they let me know immediately" and "I was involved with the care plan and have been asked for feedback."

One staff member told us, “We had a relative meeting to inform them what’s going on. We like to keep families in the loop. We want them to feel they’re in a good place and know their loved ones are being taken care of and can live their best lives the best they can.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

Environmental adaptations were in place to support people with mobility needs. People had personal spaces which they could call their own and there were communal areas which could be accessed. There was an activities programme where people could actively take part or observe. One staff member told us, “I always respect if they say no not today.” We were also told how activities were adjusted to meet people’s needs including people who spend time within their bedrooms.

Visiting was unrestricted and relatives could attend at any time convenient to them to enable them to maintain important relationships.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training. Assessments and care plans identified people's cultural, religious and communication needs. Care plans also detailed a ‘Getting to know me-My Life Story’ section. This enabled staff to provide care reflecting people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. During the assessment no concerns were raised from people, relatives or staff.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans detailed outcomes and people were supported to plan for the future. At the time of the assessment no-one was receiving end of life support, however we were told the services care planning system contained an end-of-life care plan that would be implemented should it be needed. One professional told us, "They are usually very responsive with end-of-life care, and they do ensure patients are not left alone.”