Cedarwood Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good: This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 68 (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 had a clear vision and values based on openness, equality, diversity and inclusion. While these were understood by most staff, a small number of staff did not always feel included, meaning the culture was not always experienced consistently across the workforce.

The provider described a clear organisational ethos focused on delivering compassionate, person-centred care. Leaders told us additional training was being implemented to further develop a shared culture and ensure staff understood and promoted the service's values.

People, relatives and most staff provided positive feedback about the leadership of the service. Staff generally described managers as approachable and visible and told us they felt able to raise concerns and seek guidance when required. Many staff spoke positively about the culture within the home and demonstrated a commitment to providing high-quality care and support.

Systems were in place to support engagement, quality assurance and continuous improvement. A quality team visited the service each month to gather feedback from people, relatives and staff, with findings reported to the provider to inform oversight and service development.
However, the experience of leadership and support was not consistent across the workforce. Whilst most staff felt supported and valued, a small number of staff told us this was not always their experience. In addition, environmental issues identified during the inspection indicated opportunities for improvement had not always been addressed in a timely manner.

Leaders had established a positive, person-centred culture supported by systems for engagement, oversight and improvement. Regular quality assurance processes supported ongoing learning and development. However, not all staff experienced the same levels of support, and some opportunities for improvement had not been addressed promptly. Further work was needed to ensure the service's culture and commitment to improvement were consistently experienced across all areas of the home.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People, relatives and most staff spoke positively about the leadership of the service. The registered manager, home manager and provider were visible within the service and were known to people living and working there. Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs, the operation of the service and the challenges facing the sector.

Leaders had developed their knowledge and experience through working in a range of care roles and were committed to supporting the development of others. The provider described a focus on developing staff internally, providing opportunities for progression and helping to support succession planning within the organisation. Leaders told us additional training was being implemented to further strengthen leadership skills and promote a shared culture across the service.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing compassionate and inclusive care. Leaders promoted values centred on respect, dignity and person-centred support and were able to describe how they had taken appropriate action to address concerns relating to workplace culture when these had arisen. This helped to foster an environment where staff were expected to work in line with the service's values and behaviours.

Whilst most staff felt supported and valued, a small number of staff told us this was not always their experience. This indicated the support provided by leaders was not experienced consistently across the workforce.
 

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views and provide feedback about the service.
Most staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and seek support from managers when needed. The management team were visible within the service and provided opportunities for discussion through day-to-day interactions, staff meetings and supervision. Leaders were also able to describe how they had taken appropriate action to address concerns about workplace culture when these had arisen.

However, whilst most staff felt able to speak up, a small number of staff told us they did not always feel supported or valued. This indicated the service's open culture was not experienced consistently across the workforce.

The service promoted opportunities for people and staff to provide feedback and raise concerns. Most people, relatives and staff were confident they would be listened to, and concerns would be acted upon. However, further work was needed to ensure all staff experienced the same confidence and support when speaking up.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service promoted equality, diversity and inclusion through training, policies and procedures. Staff were supported to understand and meet the needs of people from different backgrounds, and staff recruited from overseas were supported to develop their understanding of local culture and communication.
We saw evidence of flexible working arrangements to support staff with caring responsibilities outside of work. The provider told us they sought to recruit and retain a workforce with a range of backgrounds, experiences and perspectives that reflected the local community, although recruitment remained challenging due to wider workforce pressures within the sector.

Most staff spoke positively about working at the service and described supportive relationships with colleagues and managers.
However, further work was needed to ensure all staff experienced the same levels of support and value within the workplace.
 

The provider had clear systems to oversee the service and support good quality care. Monitoring and quality checks had improved since the last inspection. However, some environmental issues were not always addressed quickly.
The provider had systems in place to monitor quality, safety and performance. Regular audits and monthly visits by the provider's quality team provided oversight and supported service improvement.
Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the service and maintained oversight of day-to-day operations. Governance arrangements had strengthened since the last inspection, supporting improved monitoring of the quality and safety of care. There was also a clear business continuity plan in place to support the ongoing operation of the service and respond to unforeseen events.

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to learning, improvement and the future sustainability of the service. Although some environmental improvement opportunities had not always been addressed promptly, this did not have a significant impact on people's experiences of care.

Overall, leaders promoted a culture of continuous learning and improvement and showed a clear commitment to maintaining and developing the quality of the service.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.
The service worked collaboratively with health and social care professionals to support people's wellbeing and respond to changes in their needs. Staff liaised with GPs, community services and specialist professionals to help ensure people received coordinated care.
People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Relatives were encouraged to visit, and people were supported to spend time with family and maintain community links where this reflected their wishes.

The service worked positively with external partners and those important to people, helping to promote continuity of care and positive outcomes. These partnerships supported people to maintain relationships, access healthcare and remain connected to their local communities.
 

The provider promoted learning and improvement across the service. They looked for ways to improve people's experiences and outcomes and encouraged staff to share learning and good practice.

The service demonstrated a commitment to learning and continuous improvement. Leaders used audits, quality assurance processes and monthly quality team visits to monitor performance, identify areas for development and support improvements in the quality of care provided.
People benefitted from a service that was committed to learning, development and improvement.

Strengthened governance arrangements, regular oversight and investment in staff development. This helped support positive outcomes and the ongoing quality of care.