The Cedar Grange Nursing 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 service met people’s needs.

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 rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The care planning process did not always include people or their preferred relative. People and their relatives told us they were not always involved in their care planning. We identified that people and relatives were involved in meetings, however, no personal formal reviews of care were evidenced. Care plans and risk assessments we sampled did have essential detail, however, due to being in the middle of transformation onto an electric care planning system, care plans were not fully person centred. For example, standardised sentences were found consistently in several peoples care plans. This was standard writing that the electronic system put in place, and no review or amendments had taken place for the guidelines to identify people personally. The provider gave us assurances that they have reviewed care plans, and we will reassess at the next visit

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and their local communities. Care was supported providing choice and continuity. Where people wished, they were supported to access local events in the community, take part in fund raisers and host events at the home, where everyone was given the opportunity to be included. Staff were consistent and the home had long standing staff. At the time of this assessment t no agency staff were used. Relatives we spoke with visited often and no restrictions were in place for visiting. One relative told us, “I visit all the time, we can even book to have a meal and eat with [person]”.

The provider had different methods of providing information to meet people’s personal needs. The provider and registered manager told us how they had accessible information available to meet people’s additional needs. For example, where a person’s first language was not English, the service would arrange for information to be made available in the persons preferred language. The home would use equipment such as google translate to help effective communication. We saw no evidence to show interpreters were used in people’s care. However, evidence of meetings with people whose first language was not showed family members would be present to act as informal interpreters.

The provider had a system and process embedded for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about the care and treatment received. A suggestion box was available to people who lived at or visited the service to put forward their views. Suggestions were then looked at by the registered manger and provider weekly. Resident meetings took place regularly, this provided people with an opportunity to discuss any concerns and put forward ideas. This also provided an opportunity for the provider and registered manager to communicate any changes or improvements they were implementing into the service. Notes were taken of the meetings and any agreed actions, so that checks could be made to ensure actions had been completed.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found some referrals to health care professionals were not completed in a timely manner. For example, where people had experienced concerns around fluid intake levels, where it was appropriate to raise to the doctor, this did not always happen.

Care was not always tailored to ensure equity in experience and outcomes. Activities and opportunities were available for people. However, these were often task based rather than enjoyment based. For example, having nails cut was put as an activity on the activities timetable. People were not consistently involved in activities. For example, 1 person’s care records showed they only completed a small number of meaningful activities in the timescale of 3 months when compared to others who had experienced more.

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes. This included planning for end of life. We found that end of life plans contained people’s needs, likes and dislikes, along with their wishes of how they wished to have their care received. End of life plans also included health professionals that were to be involved in the person’s care. Staff had completed end of life training and had clear understanding of what it meant when a person had a do not resuscitate. The home had personalised alerts on people’s doors that colour coded whether or not they had a DNACPR in place. Staff explained and identified the colour code system.