Cedarwood House Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Support provided for people was person centred however care plans did lack detail regarding people’s personal histories, significant points of contact and preferred means of communication. Some care plans gave no details of family, friends or advocates. Most care plans lacked detail of people’s personal history and journey before moving into the home. Some just gave a short list of interests. Care plans were descriptive rather than personal to the subject of the plan and lacked detail in some areas. Some areas within care plans did provide detail about what people could achieve themselves before going on to describe support needs, but this was inconsistent. Staff did know people well and responded appropriately to people’s requests and support needs. A relative told us, “Yes, I feel they do put them first. They (relative) can be quite difficult but they understand and work with that.” Another said, “They do always put people first.”

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. The manager liaised and worked well with health and social care professionals and made sure that people received the support they needed, when they needed it. Relatives told us that appointments were made in a timely and appropriate way, and they were confident that their loved ones’ needs were being met. A relative told us, “I have no concerns at all in this area.” We spoke with professionals who similarly told us that they worked well with the service and that visits and appointments were made when required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Positive lines of communication were in place so that people and their relatives were kept informed and up to date with developments at the service and any specific concerns relating to their loved ones. Relatives told us that communication had improved significantly since the new manager taking over. Comments included, “They are very good at keeping in touch. If something happens, they will let know straight away. I can also speak to them pretty much anytime” and “It’s improved a lot since the new manager has taken over. The communications are good, much better than they were.” The manager told us that keeping in touch with relatives and giving updates about care provision was an important part of their role.

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. A complaints policy was in place that was accessible to people and relatives. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and makes a complaint if needed and all told us they were confident that issues would be addressed. One relative said, “I would call (manager). I have spoken to him a few times and he’s very approachable. When they (relative) first went there I was sent a bundle of documents, and I remember a complaints policy.” The manager told us that no complaints had been made in the past 12 months and that this was down to improved communications and simply keeping people informed and updated. Views were sought from people and relatives through daily conversations with people and during visits. More official questionnaires were used to gather views and ideas for ongoing improvement of the service. A relative told us, “I’ve filled in a few questionnaires and feedback forms during the time he’s been there.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Information was available in a variety of accessible formats. Some people lived with sensory issues, and some lived with dementia. In all cases staff spent time with people to make sure that daily routines and processes were explained and understood. The manager showed us different formats that were used to relay information. These included cards, books and a communication board with pictures. The manager told us, “We have some people who are non-verbal, and we regularly use these tools to help. Some need help and to know when appointments have been made for them.” Professionals told us that people’s access to services was equal and provided fairly across everyone living at the home. No one was forgotten or neglected, and people’s immediate and longer-term needs were met.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There were a lack of daily activities and diversions for people. We observed people sitting in the lounge for several hours with only the television being on in the background. There was little engagement from staff who were busy carrying out other tasks. A staff member told us, “Activities, we don’t have time but should be doing them every day.” This issue had also been highlighted by relatives with comments including, “I would like to see more” and “Some people come in but it’s not every week.” There was no activities co-ordinator employed but the manager was aware of the issue and had plans to try and improve the situation. The manager had arranged a successful summer barbeque and there were plans for a Christmas event. There were occasional visits from local services such as Pet Pals and a local dance exercise group which people enjoyed. The offer to people of daily activities remained an issue, however. Staff were able to talk with some people during mealtimes and provide some 1:1 support and conversation.

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 given the opportunity to discuss and make decisions about their future care and support needs. This included conversations about where they would prefer to spend their final days and the level of support they would need. In most cases these discussions were recorded as part of people’s care plans and were accompanied by Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (RESPECT) forms which gave further details of people’s wishes. These conversations were held with the person and their relative or advocate. A relative confirmed, “Yes, I have discussed that mum can stay at the home if she gets worse. I would like her not to go to hospital if possible and stay at the home. End of life care and support has been discussed.” Most staff had received end of life training and were able to tell us the important aspects of support for people at that important time of their care journey. A staff member said, “Important to make them comfortable and respect their wishes.”