Cedar Tree Care Home Limited

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.

Staff 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. However, care plans did not always support staff to provide consistent care that met people’s needs as they were not always up to date.

People told us they felt the care they received met their needs and preferences. One person told us, “I go to bed between 6.00pm and 6.30pm, I have my medicines and then sleep. I get up at 8.00 am.” Staff understood the principles of person-centred care and were able to provide examples of where they had done so. For example, knowing when people preferred to use the bathroom or take a shower.

However, care plans did not always support staff to provide consistent person-centred care as they were not always up to date or accurately described people’s 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.

People received support from a range of other healthcare services when these were needed, and this helped to promote joined-up care.

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

Staff spoke languages other than English and were able to speak with people in their own language when needed. A variety of information was on display for people and their relatives regarding accessing care services and living at Cedar Tree Care Home Limited.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had started to install cameras along the corridors for a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system. There had been no consultation with people, relatives or staff about this prior to the works commencing. Concerns were raised with us as to how the cameras, which were sometimes positioned straight outside people’s bedrooms, would impact on their privacy and dignity. We advised the provider to ensure any further progression of the CCTV was in line with the guidelines set out by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) who are the independent regulator for data protection and information rights. We made a referral to the ICO regarding the concerns that had been raised with us.

Complaints made by people had been retained however, there was no record kept to show the date they were received, the date any initial acknowledgement was sent, the date any investigation had been completed with the complainant informed and whether the matter had been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction. The complaints policy referred people to CQC if they were unsatisfied with how their complaint had been managed. Whilst CQC want to know about people’s experiences of care, we do not have a role in people’s individual complaints. The complaints policy failed to direct people to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) who do have a role in looking into complaints where the complainant feels they have not received a satisfactory response.

Meetings were held with relatives, and these provided the opportunity for relatives to ask questions and receive updates on activities and developments at the home.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Steps had been taken to help ensure people could access the care they needed. The care home provided an accessible environment for people. For example, corridors were wide enough for people who used wheelchairs and a passenger lift was used so people could easily get between the different floors.

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.

Staff understood how to support people to understand information regarding their care to help them secure positive outcomes. For example, for people who spoke languages other than English, care staff were able to help them understand relevant information by translating for them.

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’s wishes about any end-of-life care decisions were known and reflected in their care plans. Plans were in place for the storage of any medicines people may need to help promote their comfort and details of how to contact their relatives so they could be involved were known.

Information was available in the main reception area for people and their relatives to support decisions regarding people’s future care wishes.