You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

Cedar Lodge provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to six adults who have a learning disability. There were four people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 18 October 2017.

There was a registered manager in place, who had taken up their post since our last 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 assisted us with our inspection.

Cedar Lodge was last inspected in October 2015 where they were given an overall rating of ‘Good’. We found at this service, the level of good care provided to people had been sustained.

People were supported by caring staff. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. People were supported to be as independent as they could be and make decisions for themselves. People had access to activities that recognised their interests. The registered manager promoted community awareness within the local area. There were good relationships with people in neighbouring Ashcroft homes.

People were supported to eat safely. People who had needs related to eating and drinking had been reviewed by a speech and language therapist. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary requirements and supported people to eat a varied and healthy diet.

People were provided with appropriate care as there were guidelines in place for staff on how to provide the support. Where necessary, referrals had been made to health and social care professionals to ensure that people received appropriate care. People’s care plans were person-centred and contained information relevant to people such as their care needs as well as their interests and past history.

People were helped to stay safe because staff understood any risks to people and staff took action to minimise these risks. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs whether people remained at home or went out into the local area. Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe and protecting them from abuse. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.

People’s consent was sought prior to them receiving any care. Where people lacked capacity to give informed consent staff acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This included taking the least restrictive approach with people where possible.

People’s medicines were managed safely and records demonstrated people received the medicines they required. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure any measures that could prevent a recurrence had been implemented. Staff maintained a safe environment, including appropriate standards of fire safety. There was a contingency plan in place to help ensure people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

People were cared for by staff who had access to the induction, training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff told us they received regular supervision and felt the staff team worked well together and supported each other.

The provider had an appropriate complaints procedure which explained how complaints would be managed. Complaints received were responded to appropriately and discussed within the staff team.

People lived in a service which was well managed. Relatives told us the registered manager provided good leadership for the home and staff told us the registered manager gave them encouragement and support. The registered manager managed another of the provider’s registered homes but demonstrated that this did not diminish their ability to manage Cedar Lodge effectively. In addition they supported registered manage

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

The service was safe.

There were enough staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People were protected from avoidable risks as people�s risks had been assessed.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew what action to take if they had concerns about abuse.

People were protected by the provider�s recruitment procedures.

There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and support to meet people�s needs.

People�s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS).

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

People were supported to obtain health treatment when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

People were cared for by staff who showed them kindness and compassion.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that meant something to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

The service was responsive to people�s needs.

People�s care plans contained information about people�s individual needs in relation to their care.

People had opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

There was a complaints procedure in place which gave people the necessary information on how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 November 2017

The service was well led.

The registered provider sought views on the quality of the care that was being provided.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager.

Staff were involved in team meetings which meant they were given the opportunity to have a say in how the service was run.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to address any issues identified.

Records relating to people�s care were up to date and stored appropriately.