The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Cedar Lodge Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cedar Lodge, Main Street, Offenham, Evesham, Worcestershire, WR11 8RL (01386) 446871

Provided and run by:
Old Village Care Home Limited

All Inspections

27 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection, which took place on 27 and 28 January 2015.

Cedar Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 19 people. There were 14 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. The registered manager had been absent for a period of three months, we had been notified of their absence and suitable support had been arranged. At the time of our visit the registered manager was on a phased return to work.

At our last inspection in April 2014 the provider was not meeting the essential standards of care and welfare, and the assessing and monitoring of the quality of service provision. Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we found the provider had made some improvements.

People and their relatives said they felt safe and staff treated them well. Relatives told us staff were kind and caring and thoughtful towards people. Staff we spoke with understood that they had responsibility to take action to protect people from harm. They demonstrated awareness and recognition of abuse and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People were supported by staff with up to date knowledge about providing effective care. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect whilst supporting their needs. People’s preferences were taken into account and respected.

We found the provider had consistently followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when assessing people’s ability to make specific decisions. Two applications had been submitted to the supervisory body so the decision to restrict somebody’s liberty was only made by people who had suitable authority to do so.

People had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to eat and drink well and had access to health professionals in a timely manner. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were well managed.

Relatives knew how to raise complaints and the provider had arrangements in place so that people were listened to and action taken to make any necessary improvements.

The systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service further improvements were needed to ensure the delivery of a quality service.

The registered manager promoted a positive approach to including people’s views. People and staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their thoughts and concerns about the quality of the service.

7 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff that supported them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff had understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. The register manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

There were no systems in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents. For example, where people had fallen it had not been reviewed to identify areas of concern or if further professional advice was required. This meant that the provider could not demonstrate that they leant from incidents that effected people's safety.

Is the service effective?

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. Specialist dietary needs had been assessed and included when the menus were planned.

People told us that their visitors were able to see them in private and that visiting times were flexible. They also told us the home were accommodating and welcoming to visitors. For example, one person told us: 'They (staff) always bring my visitor's a drink when they arrive'.

The staff told us told us their training had not always been kept current and that they had not received any formal supervisions. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that the staff employed to work at the home had the skills and experience needed to support the people living there.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us: 'They help me, lovely staff' and: 'It's a very nice home and I am satisfied and happy'.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities within the service regularly. People told us they were supported by staff to play games and activities that they enjoyed.

The provider told us that they regularly sought the views of people and relatives, but these had not been recorded. This meant that the provider had not been able to provide us with examples of how they had considered the views of people in running the home.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had some quality assurance systems in place. We saw records that showed areas of the home had been reviewed but these needed to be improved. For example, the monthly room checks did not show how that any improvements needed had been completed. This meant that the provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us that they felt the quality of the service had continued to improve, but care plans could be better. For example, they felt that care plans could be reviewed more often.