You are here

Cedar Lodge Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 August 2018

Cedar Lodge Nursing Home is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Cedar Lodge Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 60 older people who require residential or nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 52 people living at the home.

The inspection took place on 7 June 2018 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of Cedar Lodge Nursing Home was undertaken in November 2016 when the overall rating was Requires Improvement.

At the time of inspection there was 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 safe living at Cedar Lodge Nursing Home because all staff looked after them well. People told us that the staff were very good and kind and they supported them when they needed it. Staff were knowledgeable about keeping people safe and the reporting procedures to follow if they had suspected or witnessed abuse. People were kept as safe as possible because potential risks had been identified and assessed to help maintain their independence. There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff and appropriate checks were carried out to help ensure only suitable staff were employed to work at the service. Safe procedures were followed to ensure that people were protected against the spread of infection. Medicines were safely stored and administered to people at the times as prescribed by their GPs.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were respected and staff followed the legal procedures when making decisions on behalf of people who lacked the mental capacity to do so for themselves. People’s needs and choices were assessed and care, treatment and support was delivered in line with people’s wishes. Staff had received training, supervision and appraisals that helped to ensure people received effective care from staff who had the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to carry out their roles. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were recorded in their care plans and the chef had regular discussions with them to ensure that meals provided were to their liking. People received support to keep them healthy. People lived in an environment that that was adapted to meet their needs. The environment had undergone a recent refurbishment and was brightly decorated.

People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care by staff who were caring and respected their privacy and dignity. People were involved in making decisions about their care, support and treatment and their independence was encouraged by staff.

People received care that was personalised to their needs. Comprehensive care plans had been written and regularly reviewed with the involvement of people and their relatives that were responsive to their individual needs. Staff had got to know people well and were aware of people’s

needs. There was a varied programme of activities people could get involved in. Complaints and concerns were taken seriously and used as an opportunity to improve the service. End of life care was provided sensitively and in line with people’s needs and preferences.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and an analysis of why accidents or incidents had occurred or what action could be taken to prevent further accidents had been developed. The provider and staff undertook quality assurance audits to monitor the standard of service provided to people. An

action plan had been produced and followed for any issues identified. People, their re

Inspection areas



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were knowledgeable about the process to be followed if they suspected or witnessed abuse.

There was sufficient staff deployed at the home to meet people�s needs.

Risks to individual people had been identified and written guidance for staff about how to manage risks was being followed.

People were kept free from infection because staff understood the infection control processes to prevent cross infection.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to help minimise the risk of repeated events.

The provider had carried out full recruitment checks to ensure staff were safe to work at the service.

People�s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and had opportunities to meet with their line manager regularly.

Where people�s liberty was restricted or they were unable to make decisions for themselves, staff had followed legal guidance.

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and individual dietary needs were met.

People had involvement from external healthcare professionals and staff supported them to remain healthy.

The environment had been adapted and was suitable for the needs of people living with dementia.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was caring.

People�s care and support was delivered in line with their care plans.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence was respected. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and were aware of people�s individual needs and how to meet them.

People were supported with their religious beliefs and were able to practice their faith.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care. Where people�s needs changed staff ensured they received the correct level of support.

Activities were appropriate to the needs of people.

Information about how to make a complaint was available.

People�s end of life care was provided sensitively and in line with people�s needs and preferences.



Updated 3 August 2018

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives had opportunities to give their views about the service.

Staff felt well supported by the manager.

The provider had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring and auditing.

The provider and staff worked with other related agencies that were involved with people living at the home.