Cedarwood Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences and life experiences. Care plans contained personalised information about how people wished to be supported, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of what was important to each person.
Most people and relatives we spoke with told us they had been involved in developing and reviewing care plans. Relatives told us they were kept informed of changes to their loved one's needs and the support being provided.

People's communication needs were understood and reflected within care records. Where people were unable to communicate verbally, guidance was available to help staff understand how they expressed their wishes and preferences. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of this information and used it to support people in a personalised way.

We saw examples of care being adapted to help people maintain independence and achieve outcomes important to them. One relative told us how their family member had been supported to move to a more accessible bedroom, which had enabled them to regain some independence. A person told us, “Staff are very thoughtful when it matters the most. I do not like people being with me when I have a shower. The staff help me in a way which makes me feel comfortable." This demonstrated how staff respected people's preferences and adapted support to meet their individual needs.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Overall, people experienced coordinated and consistent care, with staff working alongside relatives and partner organisations to help ensure support remained responsive when needs changed.

People received consistent care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs. The stable staff team helped to promote continuity and develop positive relationships with people and their relatives.

People and relatives told us they were kept informed about changes in care and support and felt involved in important decisions.
The service worked effectively with healthcare professionals and partner agencies to help ensure people's needs continued to be met. Feedback from professionals was positive and reflected good communication between the service and other organisations involved in people's care.

The registered manager described challenges in securing a more suitable placement for 1 person whose needs had changed significantly. The service continued to support the person and work with relevant agencies whilst alternative arrangements were explored.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives were provided with information about their care and support in ways they could understand.
Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Most people and relatives told us they felt informed about their care and were kept updated when changes occurred. Relatives said communication from the service was good and they were involved in discussions where appropriate.

People's communication needs were identified and recorded within care plans. Where people were unable to communicate verbally, guidance was available to help staff understand how people expressed their wishes, choices and preferences. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's communication needs and adapted their approach accordingly.

The service recognised the importance of effective communication and supporting people from a range of different backgrounds and experiences. Staff were supported to develop their communication skills and remove barriers to communication. For example, staff who had moved to the UK from overseas were supported to understand local culture, customs and dialects to help ensure effective communication with people living at the service.

Information could be provided in alternative formats where required to support people's understanding and involvement in their care. People were also provided with information about the service, including a service user guide when they moved into the home.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were encouraged to share their views and be involved in decisions about their care and support. Most people and relatives told us they felt listened to and had opportunities to discuss their care, preferences and any changes they wished to make. Relatives told us they were kept informed and involved in decisions about their loved one's care where appropriate.

The service gathered feedback through a range of methods, including care reviews, resident meetings, relatives' meetings, questionnaires and day-to-day conversations. We saw evidence that feedback was considered and acted upon to improve people's experiences. People's views, choices and preferences were reflected within care records and, where people were unable to communicate verbally, guidance was available to help staff understand how they expressed their wishes and involve them in decisions about their care.

During the assessment, people provided mixed feedback about aspects of the service, including meals and activities. Some people told us meals were ‘usually just okay’, and one person said they did not participate in activities because they were ‘not for them’. The registered manager responded positively to this feedback by seeking further views from people and developing action plans to improve the dining experience, review menu choices and diversify activities. A ‘You Said, We Did’ board had also been introduced to demonstrate how feedback had been acted upon.
 

The provider did not always provide an environment that supported equitable access for people with dementia. Environmental adaptations were not consistently in place to promote independence, orientation and inclusion for people living with cognitive impairment.

People had equitable access to care, support and healthcare services including routine health appointments and weekly GP visits for non-urgent concerns, regardless of their individual needs, backgrounds or circumstances. The provider took steps to understand people's diverse needs and preferences and ensure support was delivered in a way that promoted inclusion and reduced barriers to access.

People were assessed before moving into the service to help ensure their needs could be met. Information about people's communication, cultural and health needs was recorded within care plans and used to inform the support they received.

The environment was accessible to people with a range of physical needs. People were able to access equipment and adaptations, including wheelchairs and hoists, to support their mobility and independence.

However, we identified opportunities to further improve the environment for people living with dementia. Whilst a number of people using the service were living with dementia, the environment did not consistently incorporate dementia-friendly design features to support orientation, independence and inclusion. We discussed this with the registered manager, who recognised this as an area for development and made arranged to undertake a comprehensive review of the environment to identify and implement improvements.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People received care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Staff understood people's diverse backgrounds, communication needs and personal preferences and adapted support accordingly.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and had access to policies and procedures designed to promote inclusive practice and reduce the risk of discrimination. This helped to ensure people were treated fairly and with respect regardless of their background, identity or personal circumstances.

Leaders demonstrated an understanding of their responsibility to promote equality and inclusion within the service. The home manager provided an example of how they had sensitively challenged inappropriate comments made by a person living at the service, whilst supporting the individual to understand the impact of their words and maintaining positive relationships. This demonstrated a commitment to promoting a culture of respect and inclusion.

People and relatives told us staff knew them well and understood their individual needs. Staff worked to reduce barriers and ensure people were able to remain involved in decisions about their care and daily lives.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to plan for the future and make decisions about how they wished to be cared for. Care plans contained information about people's preferences, wishes and the outcomes they wanted to achieve, helping staff to provide care that reflected what was important to them.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in discussions about care and support. Records demonstrated that people's wishes were reviewed as part of ongoing care planning and staff were aware of people's preferences and longer-term goals.

We saw evidence that the provider considered people's future needs when planning care. For example, where people's needs changed significantly, discussions took place with relevant professionals and family members to ensure appropriate arrangements could be explored and continuity of care maintained. People approaching the end of their lives had opportunities to discuss and record what mattered most to them, including their preferences for care, their final wishes and who they wanted involved in arrangements after their death.

Overall, people were supported to express their wishes and preferences for the future. Care planning reflected what was important to people and the service worked with individuals, relatives and professionals to help ensure future care arrangements were considered and planned appropriately.