Archived: Cedarfoss House

At the last inspection in January 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited. People indicated to us they felt safe living at the home.

Staff had continued to receive appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind, caring, compassionate and patient. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate record of the person and their day to day needs.

People’s relatives told us they were aware of how to express concerns or make complaints, but they had not needed to make any complaints. People were also given the opportunity to feedback their views of the service provided.

The registered manager continued to lead the team with a positive and pro-active style of management, and they went ‘over and above’ their duties and responsibilities. They provided us with a variety of evidence to demonstrate that leadership at the home continued to be ‘outstanding’.

The registered manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support that they required, and to monitor that staff were following the policies, procedures and systems in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that people had their care and support needs met; their care plans were kept up to date and reflected their current care needs. A relative told us, 'The staff are lovely' and a district nurse said, 'Staff are friendly and helpful but also professional. The people who live here always seem happy'. People had their nutritional needs met and their special diets had been catered for. There was a choice available at each mealtime and pictures were displayed in the dining room to assist people in making choices about their meals.

On the day of the inspection we saw that the home was well maintained, clean and hygienic and there were measures in place to prevent and control the risk of infection.

Staff received appropriate training and they told us that they felt well supported. They attended meetings and had one to one meetings with the manager. Residents meetings were also held. These meetings gave people the opportunity to express their views about the way in which the home was being managed. Surveys were also used to measure people's satisfaction with the service offered by the home.

The manager and staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care plans recorded the decisions that people could make about their day to day lives and the decisions that they would need assistance with.

Staff displayed an understanding of the different types of abuse and the action they should take if they became aware of an incident of abuse. Medication was obtained, stored and administered safely. People told us that they felt safe living at the home.

Robust policies and procedures were used when recruiting staff and this ensured that only staff considered suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Care workers told us that there were always sufficient numbers of staff on duty.

The quality assurance system evidenced that people who lived at the home, staff, health care professionals and relatives/friends were consulted about the service provided. Any suggestions made had been taken seriously and requests from people who lived at the home were met whenever this was possible. Systems were audited to ensure that they were being followed consistently.