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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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.
At our last assessment, people’s relatives told us people’s clothes often went missing and their loved ones were sometimes dressed in clothes that belonged to someone else. At this assessment, we did not have feedback that suggested this was continuing. People looked clean and well presented. Staff encouraged people and spoke to them with kindness. People and relatives commented, “I like living here. I have been here for a long time. I know people and the staff are really nice”, "It is okay here. The staff are kind and do things the way they should be done" and "They are kind and caring. They know her well and know what she likes and doesn't like."

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 who had a learning disability had not been assessed to check if Cedar Court Care Home was the best place for them to live following their initial admission. Staff had not advocated on their behalf to ensure the care they received was appropriate to their needs and preferences or if these would be more appropriately met in a specialist service.
Staff knew people well, what their abilities were and what was important to them.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
Although people’s rights were not always evidenced as having been met through the recording of consent in relation to MCA 2005, we saw staff giving people choice on a day-to-day basis. People were walking around independently where they were able to and staff encouraged independence. There were activities available on the day we visited but there were mixed views about the choice of activities available for people to choose from. Relatives’ comments included, “Activities have improved”, “There are activities, like singing. There’s nothing for him on an individual basis” and “They need to go outside more, not cooped up in the home. He needs more sunshine and fresh air.”

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.
Some people’s care records described how to recognise when people were in distress and if there were triggers to be aware of to enable a swift response. However, the quality of guidance was not always consistent or respectful. Some people who became anxious and distressed were described in care records as demanding attention when staff are too busy, or people behave in ways to attract attention. This meant there was a risk staff may not always respond quickly to a person’s request for help as an assumption may be made their need may not require swift attention.
We did not see anyone waiting for staff to attend to their needs and did not hear call bells sounding for any length of time. Generally, people did not feel as though they were left to wait outside of busy times. A person told us, "When I need someone there is always somebody around."

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
At our last inspection we identified the wellbeing of staff needed to be developed and the provider told us they were working on changing the staff culture. At this assessment, no improvements had been made and had potentially deteriorated as further concerns were being raised by staff, which meant the timely action promised by the provider had not happened.
There was discontent in the staff team which had led to staff whistleblowing to CQC and the local authority. When we visited, staff continued to be discontented and felt they had not been listened to by the provider and their points of view had not been taken into account. They were concerned about staffing levels and changes to their employment. There was a risk the feelings of staff and their concerns could impact on people’s care if they were not tackled quickly.