The Cedar Grange Nursing 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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered provider. However, the new provider inherited the previous rating of good. This key question has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always have regular meaningful interactions with staff. We saw that interactions which did take place were mostly task orientated. However, when staff did interact with people, they did so with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us, “Everyone is so friendly here, I feel respected”. A further person told us, “They let me be independent, if I need anything I ask and always get the help”.

The staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The service involved the local community, and we saw evidence where people had taken part in charity fundraising for organisations that had meaning to people. This also included staff and relatives. Where people had cultural needs, the service supported them to follow their faith. For example, where a person had a specific religion, meal choices were adapted. The provider promoted people’s individual preferences and ensured things they liked were in place. For example, 1 person told us, “I’ve got friends here. I go out on my scooter. It’s such a comfortable place. I’ve brought my own chair. It all ticks along well. It’s well managed. Nothing could be better”.

The provider and staff promoted people’s independence. For example, the home had a hoist for people to use, we also observed people using walking frames and mobility aids to keep them safe in the bathroom. Menus were displayed for people to view the options available. We observed people discussing with staff alternative meal options if they did not wish to have the meals offered. People told us and we observed staff empowering people to be independent. For example, people were involved in cleaning their own bedrooms and washing clothes if they wished to. One person told us, “They never take over, if I need help, I ask”.

People had care plans and risk assessments. Support guidelines for staff to follow were not always respectful to people. For example, when a person was showing signs of distress, the distraction method in place was not fully respectful and had the potential to be used inappropriately by staff or misinterpreted. However, staff were present in all areas of the service. Communal areas were not left unsupervised. We observed people received prompt support from staff when they asked for support. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff told us they felt supported and valued in their role. A staff member told us “The manager is good; they consider my well-being and listen to me”. The provider encouraged staff development and celebrated successes of the service.