Cedarwood Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff demonstrated a kind, compassionate and person-centred approach. People were treated with dignity and respect and received emotional support when needed. Our observations and feedback from people showed a caring culture where positive relationships were valued and promoted.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect by staff who knew them well. People and relatives consistently spoke positively about the staff team and described them as kind, caring and thoughtful. Many staff spoke warmly about the people they supported and described the home as being like a family.

Throughout the assessment, we observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff took time to engage with people, provide reassurance and respond to emotional needs in a calm and compassionate manner. For example, we observed staff supporting people who were upset or anxious, offering reassurance and spending time with them until they felt more settled. On 1 occasion, a staff member sat with a person who was feeling anxious whilst having lunch in the garden, providing companionship and reassurance.

People's dignity was promoted through respectful and person-centred interactions. Staff explained the support they were providing, sought consent and adapted their approach to meet individual needs. We observed staff taking time to sit and talk with people and treating them as individuals. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and told us they felt respected and well cared for.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People received personalised care and support from staff who knew them well. Care plans contained detailed information about people's backgrounds, preferences, routines and the ways they wished to be supported. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs and were able to describe what was important to them.

Staff adapted their approach to meet people's individual needs and preferences. One staff member told us a person living at the service became distressed if they supported them with their medication. To reduce the likelihood of this, they would arrange for another staff member to administer the person's medicines when they were working. This demonstrated an understanding of the person's preferences and a commitment to providing care in a way that minimised distress and promoted positive outcomes.

The service supported people from a range of different backgrounds, cultures and life experiences. Staff spoke positively about the importance of understanding and respecting people's individual identities and demonstrated an awareness of people's cultural needs and preferences. Efforts had been made to ensure people's backgrounds, beliefs and experiences were understood and reflected in the support they received.

Staff adapted their communication and support to meet people's individual needs. Where people were not always able to communicate verbally, care plans included guidance about how they expressed their wishes and preferences. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of these communication needs and used this knowledge to involve people in decisions about their care wherever possible.

People told us staff knew them well and understood their preferences. Throughout our inspection, we observed positive interactions between staff and people. From these interactions it was clear staff knew people well and relationships were positive which had developed over time. The stable staff team supported continuity of care and enabled staff to provide support that reflected people's individual needs, preferences and routines.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to exercise choice and maintain control over their daily lives. Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and encouraging people to make decisions about how they wished to spend their time and receive support.

People's preferences were respected and reflected in the care they received. For example, people were able to request support from either male or female care staff where this was important to them. This helped ensure people's personal wishes and preferences were respected.
People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them. Family and friends were welcome to visit at any time, and some people regularly spent time with relatives away from the service. This enabled people to maintain their independence and remain connected to those who mattered to them.

The service offered a programme of daily activities and opportunities for social engagement. However, we identified opportunities to further develop the activity provision to ensure it met the needs and interests of all people living at the service. Some activities appeared repetitive and were not always reflective of people's individual preferences. We also observed occasions where activities could have been more inclusive. One person told us they chose not to participate because, "It is not for me." We shared this feedback with the registered manager who responded positively and implemented an action plan to review and diversify the activities available.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People received timely support from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs. During our inspection, staff were visible throughout the service, call bells were responded to promptly and people told us staff were available when needed.
Staff responded appropriately when people required reassurance or additional support. We observed staff supporting people who appeared anxious or distressed in a calm, patient and compassionate manner.

Staff were able to recognise signs of pain, discomfort and distress, including for people who were unable to communicate verbally. Care plans and 'when required' medication protocols contained personalised guidance to help staff identify when people may require additional support or pain relief. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of this information and how to respond appropriately.

We saw evidence that emergency assistance was sought promptly when required. Staff understood how to respond to deteriorating health needs and took appropriate action to ensure people received timely support.
Information about changes in people's needs was shared through handovers and the electronic care planning system, helping staff provide consistent and responsive care.

People and relatives were generally positive about how quickly staff responded when support was required.
 

The provider recognised the importance of staff wellbeing and provided support and development opportunities.

Staff feedback was largely positive, although one member of staff told us they had not always felt supported. This was not consistent with the wider feedback received, and overall arrangements to support workforce wellbeing and enablement were effective.
Staff generally spoke positively about working at the service and described the management team as approachable and supportive. One staff member told us, “The manager is really caring and always makes sure we are ok. This is a nice place to work." Another said, “I have been supported well since my return. [Name], the manager, has been really supportive and I have a good work life balance." This demonstrated positive working relationships between staff and management.

Staff received induction, mandatory training and role-specific training to support them in their roles. The provider used competency assessments, observations and knowledge checks to help ensure staff were able to apply their learning in practice. Staff told us they had access to the information and support needed to provide effective care.

The service had a stable staff team, and many staff had worked at the home for a significant period of time. Staff told us workloads were generally manageable and shift patterns supported a positive work-life balance.
Staff support arrangements were in place, including regular supervision. Records demonstrated opportunities for staff to discuss their practice, training and any concerns relating to their role. The provider had identified opportunities to further develop supervision arrangements by placing a greater emphasis on staff wellbeing, individual development and career progression.

The registered manager described a range of approaches used to recognise staff contributions, including team celebrations and acknowledging good practice. Staff told us they felt their efforts were recognised and valued by the management team.
Staff told us they were able to raise concerns and discuss ideas with managers. Most staff were confident concerns would be listened to and acted upon appropriately.