Archived: Cedars Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were systems and processes in place, in line with guidance, to ensure visitors to the home did not introduce and spread Covid-19.

Staff followed government guidance in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE). All staff were wearing face masks. The home had sufficient supplies of PPE.

A documented ongoing testing regime was in place for visitors, staff and people living in the home. Appropriate processes were in place should anyone display any symptoms of Covid-19.

We observed the home to be clean and well maintained. All areas of the home were subject to regular and enhanced cleaning regimes.

The home had a visiting plan in place in line with current guidance.

All staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and the donning and doffing of PPE.

Cedars care home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 44 people over the age of 65. There were 37 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People living at Cedars were happy and well cared for. Relatives spoke positively about the service.

Staff were kind and caring and knew all the people and their diverse needs. Staff understood their roles clearly and knew what was expected of them. People were treated with respect and dignity, they were also supported to maintain their independence.

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

The environment was dementia friendly with an accessible garden. People and their relatives told us they were a wide variety of activities to take part in if they chose this.

The registered manager knew people well and staff felt supported in their role. The provider was fully involved in the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection;

At the last inspection this service was rated Good, (published 02 November 2016).

Why we inspected;

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up;

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Cedars Care Home provides care and support for up to 44 older people. The service had a registered manager. 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.

We received positive feedback from people who used the service and visiting relatives about the care and support provided. They told us the service was caring. Staff were kind, cheerful, and helpful, and made sure people’s privacy and dignity were respected. People enjoyed the food and the meal experiences we observed were a pleasant experience. People received a varied diet and were offered plenty to eat. They received good support that ensured their health care needs were met.

Staff knew people well and responded to people’s individual needs. Care plans were person centred and covered key areas of care and support. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support, and received appropriate support when they were unable to make decisions for themselves. People engaged in group and individual social activities.

People felt safe. Systems were in place to manage risk and keep people safe, which included protecting them from abuse. Members of the management team had specific responsibilities around safety and staff we spoke with clearly understood everyone’s role and responsibilities. People lived in a clean environment and checks were carried out to make sure it was safe.

There were enough competent and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received appropriate training and supervision which equipped them with the skills and knowledge to do their job well.

The service had good management and leadership. People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the management team and told us the service was well led. Staff enjoyed working at the service and felt valued. The home’s management team promoted quality and safety and had good systems in place to help ensure this was achieved. People knew the management team and said they would be comfortable raising concerns. People were encouraged to share their views and contributed to the running of the home.

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

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us that they felt safe and were well cared for and supported by care workers. They told us that they would speak to a care staff or one of the managers if they had any worries or concerns. A relative of a person who used the service told us, "I don't need to worry now my relative (person's name) is here; they were at risk in the community but not now."

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the equipment used in the service was serviced and maintained. We looked at a number of service records and certificates which showed maintenance tests and services were carried out.

We asked staff if there was anyone subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisation (DoLS), and although there was nobody currently requiring a DoLS authorisation staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and provided assurances they would refer people for a DoLS authorisation as necessary.

We looked at the employment records of four members of staff. We saw either criminal record bureau checks or disclosure and barring service checks had been completed for all staff.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed where possible with them or their relative. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff were respectful and considered people's privacy and dignity when providing care. Staff spoke in a respectful manner and knocked on people's doors before entering their rooms. A relative of a person who used the service told us 'I am really happy with the care provided to my relative (person's name). The staff are really good, they always keep me updated."

We saw details of surveys completed by people who lived at Cedars Care Home and their 'significant others'. The form asked for 'examples of what The Cedars does well' and 'where The Cedars can improve'. One person had said 'from what I can see the care is excellent' and another person said, 'the residents are well cared for and all the staff are caring people'.

Is the service responsive?

We saw the complaints policy displayed in the reception area of the home and each person's bedroom.

The provider took account of people's concerns; a comment on a recent survey was that the car park was too small. In response to this the size of the car park had been increased.

Is the service well led?

Meetings were held on a regular basis for people who used the service and staff. We saw evidence of meeting minutes which documented what had been discussed and any follow up action needed from feedback received. One member of care staff told us, "The management team listen to what we have to say in staff meetings and act on it."

The operations manager showed us their detailed and comprehensive quality assurance records. These included systems and audits in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided in all areas of the home.

We found that people had care plans that addressed their individual needs and were reviewed regularly. We saw that there were safe and well managed systems for administering medication by staff who were trained.

Staffing levels were adequate and there were systems in place to manage the staffing requirements to ensure that cover was provided. We saw that staff had training to develop their skills and enable them to provide quality care for people who lived at the home.

We saw that the home was clean and that there were effective processes in place to ensure that risks of infection were managed. Staff understood processes for handwashing. Infection control processes and audits meant that the situation throughout the home was monitored and appropriate action taken to ensure that standards of cleanliness were maintained.

The provider had put in place systems in which they gathered feedback about the quality of the service provided and we saw that as a result of these, actions were taken and improvements made. Overall we found that people were well cared for and appeared to be happy living at Cedars Care Home..