Cedarwood House Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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. People’s needs were managed by staff with kindness, compassion and understanding. Staff knew people well and knew how they preferred to be treated. Some enjoyed a fun approach and other preferred a more practical approach when it came to tasks that needed doing. Relatives spoke highly of the staff team and their approach to people. Comments included, “Staff are friendly and kind, can’t fault them. They often make dad laugh which is lovely and a comfort to me” and “The staff are lovely and friendly. Really seems like they care.” A professional said, “During my visits, the carers are attentive with the residents.In my interactions with the care team I see desire to provide the best care.” People’s dignity was largely protected and respected with care being taken during personal care to ensure privacy. There were copies of some risk assessments printed and pinned to people’s bedroom walls which gave instructions to staff about risks to people. This was however on display to anyone entering their bedrooms and did not therefore always maintain people’s dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.People’s likes, dislikes and preferred daily routines were respected. Most people were able to move around the home as they pleased although some expressed a wish to visit the garden but due to staff numbers this was not always possible. Staff told us that they knew about people’s preferences and how and where they liked to spend their time but that they did not always have the time to spend with people to meet all their social needs. People’s cultural and religious needs were considered. For example, representatives from the local church attended the home to meet and talk with people a few times each year. People’s bedrooms were personalised and many contained items of furniture brought in from their original homes. Photographs and personal effects decorated people’s rooms with the confines of safety.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People’s independence was supported and promoted by staff without compromising people’s safety. Staff knew how important it was to let people carry out and achieve daily tasks for themselves to help with their mobility and to maintain their cognition. A staff member told us, “We let people make choices and then support them to do things for themselves. Some people can wash their face, hands and front and just need support with the rest.” They added, “Some people need more time and that’s fine.” A relative said, “Yes they support mum, very good in trying to support her standing and encouraging over a long time.” Another relative added, “Yes, they promote this (independence) definitely.” Care plans were being updated to reflect what people could achieve themselves and what areas and tasks they needed support with.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People’s needs were met in terms of their personal safety. For example, if people wanted to mobilise and move from one part of the home to another, staff were on hand to support them. When call bells rang, staff responded as quickly as they were able to with one relative telling us, “Yes, I have seen staff all scamper if there is an emergency alarm.” However, they went on to say, “They do need more staff for their needs are now greater and are higher dependency. It is difficult for them to be in 2 places at once.” Staff confirmed that people’s needs were increasing and that this placed more pressure on the staff team as people needed more time for their needs to be met. For example, 3 people now needed 1:1 support at mealtimes which meant that their meals had to be staggered to make sure at least 1 staff member was available for the other residents.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. All staff told us they felt supported to achieve a positive work life balance. The manager told us they were managing a young team who were enthusiastic and passionate about providing the best care for people. This was in part achieved by supporting staff to have the time away from work when needed, sometimes at short notice and by supporting them to realise personal goals for example, by becoming supervisors or by taking on more responsibility at work. Staff told us that the manager had delivered some face-to-face training rather than it all being online. This they told us was good for staff morale and helped staff to bond. The manager had arranged a summer barbeque for staff and relatives which was well received by everyone. The manager made sure they were as available as possible to staff and spent time with them, 1:1, whenever possible.