Cedar Court 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 inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At the last inspection, the service was in breach of regulation in relation to being treated with kindness and maintaining people’s dignity. While improvements have been made, at this inspection, the service is still in breach of regulation in relation to maintaining people’s dignity.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always treated with dignity. We received feedback from relatives about people’s clothes and items being lost or misplaced in the service. They told us they felt investigations into these concerns were not robust. We were also told relatives found people were sometimes dressed in other people’s clothes when they visited. We fed this back to the management team. We were told people had not raised these concerns with the management team. They had introduced a system of requesting relatives put labels into clothes brought into they brought into the service for people. If relatives were unable to do this, they could request staff complete this task for them.

One relative said, “Whenever I have seen [staff] interacting with [relative], they are really nice, what upsets us is [relative] was always a smart person, it upsets us when [relative] is wet and not cleaned as regularly as we would like.” This relative told us since they spoke to staff their relative had appeared to be much cleaner when they visit which indicated improvement in this area prior to the inspection. Another person said, “It’s easy to chat to [staff] if you have issues, my [relative] is particular about cleanliness, and it makes [them] angry if [they] are not clean. We have raised the issue, and things have got slightly better.” These comments were fed back to the management team.

People told us they were always made to feel welcome when they visited the service. One relative said staff checked in with them to see if they wanted food or drink during their visit. One relative said, “Staff are very nice people, and they are making an effort.”

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.

We saw several care plans where people were recorded on being on fluid watch. Fluid watch is a requirement to monitor a person’s intake and output of fluids because they were assessed to be at risk of dehydration. The management team however clarified that not all people who had fluid watch documented on their care plans were assessed to be at risk of dehydration. The system was being used as a reminder to staff to support people with drinks throughout the day instead. This blanket approach meant people had information on their care plans not relevant to their own care and support needs, but people were not being treated as individuals in relation to the care they received. We discussed this with the management team, who removed fluid watch from risk assessments where people were not assessed to be at risk of dehydration.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback in relation to people taking part in activities. Some relatives we spoke to told us people did not get the opportunity to go outside the home or attend community events. One relative said, “No, I want more of that.” The service had employed a member of staff to lead on activities. The service also had a timetable of scheduled activities for people to take part in. However, some relatives told us they were not aware of activities for people. The provider had not ensured that all people using the service had access to the activities available and were able to participate if they wished to. This left people at risk of a lack of stimulation which risked having a harmful effect on their wellbeing. We raised this with the management team, who advised us they would review to ensure all people and their relatives were made aware of the activities available at the service.

However, we did receive positive feedback from some people and their relatives about people’s choice around socialising and events. One relative said, “The vicar comes in once a week… they have karaoke and puzzles, there is loads going on. They have parties, seasonal events and singers come in.” Another family member said, “[Relative] does join in the activities. The activities coordinator does encourage [relative] to join in with chair exercise or listen to signers or do puzzles, I am really pleased with that.”

The manager and the chef spoke to each person using the service every evening to get the choice of meal they required for the following day. There was a choice of two menus, and the option of sandwiches or soup could be offered if people did not wish to have a choice of meal on the day.

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. A relative told us of their observations when they visited the service saying that people seemed to “Sit all day. When I visit, I make an effort to take [relative] into the garden. I never see any [staff] take people out, trips have stopped, and activities have dropped.” Another person said, “[Relative] doesn’t do anything with the community and the other residents don’t even go into the garden.”

Some people told us their immediate needs were not always met. One family member said, their relative used to like the baking sessions, but these no longer happen there was nowhere else for this activity to take place.” Another family member told us their relative received no stimuli and did not take part in any activities. This left people at risk of harm in relation to their wellbeing and remaining active and stimulated. We raised this concern with the management team, who told us the service did have activities for people to attend.Despite this, some people and their relatives were happy with the support people received in relation to their immediate needs being met by the service.

While the provider worked to support staff with their well-being, at the time of the inspection, improvement was needed. We identified the well-being of staff need to be developed. Evidence of this was through the minutes of staff meetings records. These documented where staff had expressed how unhappy they were with the changes being implemented by the new management team. The requirement for staff wellbeing improvement was also reflected in the high rate of staff sickness. The managers told us they were working to eliminate a previous closed culture at the service and improve staff culture overall. However, some staff told us they were happy with how the service was working.