During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Cedar House is a care home personal care without nursing. The service is set over 2 floors with access to a large garden and based in the centre of the local community. People had easy access to community facilities and activities. There were 5 people using the service at the time of inspection.
Who the service is for
This is a specialist service for people living with a learning disability and autistic people. We have assessed the service against, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people, respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was working within these principles.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment from the 7 October till the 16 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard.
Relatives we spoke with were very complimentary of the staff and how they supported their loved ones. One relative said, “Staff meet [person name] needs brilliantly, they go above and beyond.”
There was a consistent staff team working at the service who had the skills, knowledge and training to support people safely. A relative told us where their loved one had an additional health concern identified the registered manager arranged for all staff to have training on this condition and invited them in to talk to staff about the condition. We observed staff during the inspection completing this additional training.
When new staff were recruited at the service, the registered manager asked people if they would like to ask any questions of the new staff being interviewed. The registered manager tried to match staff and people’s interests and hobbies so that they could enjoy activities together. All the appropriate recruitment checks were in place of new staff, and they underwent a full induction when they started at the service. A member of staff said, “During my induction I was shown around the service, covered fire points and policies, completed training and had an induction booklet.”
Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and worked with them to ensure people were safe. Including reviewing care and support needs and putting mitigation of risks in place. A member of staff said, “I make sure people are safe when they are at home or out in the community. If I had any concerns, I would speak to the manager or head office.”
Staff received training in supporting people with medicines and had their competency checked to support people safely. The registered manager completed audits and monitored the safe use of medicines.
People were supported to have their medicines safely. The registered manager told us they had actively been working with the STOMP (stop over medicating people with learning disability or autism) team to review and reduce medicines people had been prescribed over several years. This reduction is important to ensure people have a good quality of life without the effects of over medication and long-term side effects from medicines. These reviews were on-going to ensure people received the correct medicines to optimise their quality of life.
People were involved in planning how they wished to spend their time and participate in activities they enjoyed. Staff worked with people to ensure they had maximum control over their lives whilst putting measures in place to mitigate risks. The registered manager told us they tried to support people to do activities and achieve their goals. If an activity was not possible, they would try and find as close an alternative as possible. For example, where one person wanted to experience doing a sky dive, this could not be arranged due to safety concerns, they instead arranged for them to have an indoor sky diving experience.
Care and support was planned with people and their relatives to ensure it was person centred and met their wishes. Relatives told us communication was good with the service and that they were involved in discussing care and support. One relative said, “Staff listen to what we have to say and listen to [person name].”
Staff enabled people to access healthcare services. This included advocating on their behalf to ensure they had equal access to services, from routine screening to specialist reviews. Where people needed support with screening staff worked with them, for example, by practising with them putting on stickers to certain parts of their body to replicate how an echocardiogram (ECG) would be conducted. Or working with them to normalise having blood test taken. A relative said, “The staff have bent over backwards to address their health concerns.”
Staff understood people’s different communication styles and used this to communicate with them effectively. Each person had a keyworker who reviewed their care needs with them regularly. There were communication assessments in place that informed staff of the best way to communicate with people. Some people responded to pictures, objects of reference, sounds or used other communication aids such as computers. A relative told us, “[Person name] can use key words, and their speech has improved since being at the service. They also go onto google and show pictures to make themselves understood.”
We saw staff and people had good relationships and positive interactions together. Staff knew people well and spoke about them positively. A relative told us, “Staff are more like friends.” We observed people to be happy and relaxed in the company of staff.
We found a positive culture at the service with staff wanting to support people to live full and active lives, whilst remaining healthy and happy. Staff took an active role in helping people enjoy their lives whilst living as independently as possible. People had been supported to decorate their rooms with items that interested them, such as posters and pictures on walls that reflected their hobbies. People chose how they wished their rooms to be decorated and had their own room key to keep their space private.
Staff shared the provider’s and manager’s vision for people to live active lives, to make choices and to be as independent as possible. One member of staff said, “We want people to have safe happy and comfortable lives, doing everyday activities.”
The registered manager and provider had systems in place to provide good oversight of the service and promote good practice with staff. Audits were in place to monitor the service including the environment and health and safety, with safety certificates in place where required. Where needed the provider had maintenance staff to do day to day repairs. There was a fire risk assessment in place, and we saw staff completed regular fire drills and practised with people.
Staff told us they felt they had all the support they needed to provide good care. There was regular training sessions with time put aside to complete training. Staff were supported with regular meetings where, good practice and lessons learned were shared. Staff told us they felt they had a good team working at the service and had the opportunity to share feedback during meetings and supervision sessions.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff supported people to make decisions and listened to their choices. At the time of inspection there were no current DoLS in place.