Cedar Court 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.
At the last assessment, the provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care. At this assessment, we continued to find not all people received care that put them at the centre, making sure their needs and wishes were met, and changes were responded to seamlessly. The care plans of 2 people who had a learning disability did not include important and relevant information for staff to be aware of. These included their past life, for example if they had previously lived in care, what activities had they been interested in and how to replicate this and support their individual involvement. There were some changes in need that had not always been updated into people’s care plan, for example, a change in modified diet and there were inconsistencies such as people’s ability to make choices. Some care plans referred to people as the wrong gender, for example, referring to ‘he’ rather than ‘she’.
Some people’s care plans were more detailed and provided more individual information than others. Inconsistency meant some people may not receive the same level of individual attention and opportunity as others. Some relatives told us they were involved in developing people’s care plans, but other relatives told us they were not. Comments included, “They run through her care plan with me”, “I’ve never been offered his care plan” and “I’ve had no involvement in his care plan recently. We have not had any meetings to discuss this at all recently. They do ask me if I am OK with his care though.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
There was a stable staff team, and staff could describe people’s needs. Although this mitigated the impact of incomplete and contradictory guidance in people’s care plans, a risk remained that staff may not provide consistency when providing people’s care. Staff had not considered that the service they were providing may not meet the specialist health and social care needs of some of the people living there. A joined-up approach was not taken with external agencies to assess the situation of individuals to ensure choice and care needs were considered and met.
Referrals were made to healthcare professionals who visited to give advice and guidance to people when necessary.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
At the last assessment people’s communication needs were not always met. At this assessment there continued to be some areas to improve in this area. People and their relatives told us they were given information. People’s care plans included how they communicated their needs, for example if they were able to verbally communicate their wishes and choices. However, the general information provided such as menus, or notices on the notice board were in the written word, which may not be suitable for people with a learning disability, or people living with dementia who had lost the ability to understand written words.
However, we saw staff speaking with people and adjusting how they communicated to suit the needs and ability of the person they were talking with.

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.
People and their relatives told us they were asked to share their views through regular meetings. The provider also undertook an annual survey where people could voice their opinions. People’s relatives gave examples of action that had been taken when concerns had been raised. These included the parking for visitors and changes to the food menus. There had been many changes of managers in recent months. People and relatives told us they were confident to raise concerns if they had them with the current manager.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and they generally had access to help when they needed it, from care staff and from external healthcare professionals. A person commented, "I have my nails cut and my hair washed when I want."
The experience of people and their relatives was that their needs were generally met in a timely way.

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.
The feedback we had from people and their relatives suggested people had equal access to care and support. However, we found not everyone had equal experiences. People who had more complex care needs, such as a learning disability did not have the same access to the opportunities other people with a learning disability may have who live in a specialist setting. A person had a visual impairment, and as this had not been included in any of the information provided in their care records, their access to care and meaningful activity was compromised.

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.
The service was not supporting anyone who needed end of life care at the time of the assessment. However, people had been asked to share their wishes at the end of life to enable the development of a care plan for when this was needed.