You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Cedar House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 October 2017

The inspection visit took place on 29 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Cedar House is a care home that provides short term accommodation and personal care and support for up to seven adults with physical and learning disabilities as well as people with autism. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service. The service supports 33 people at various times throughout the year. There is also a small supported living group home for adults with learning disabilities who receive personal care. Four people were using this service at the time of our inspection. At the last inspection on 14 April 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff knew their responsibilities to help protect people from harm and abuse. Risks associated with people’s care and support were assessed to help them to remain safe. The registered manager was making improvements to some people’s care records where it was known that marks or scratches could occur as people sometimes self-injured. Staffing numbers were suitable. The provider was currently recruiting an additional member of staff as there was a vacancy. The provider had safely recruited staff. This included carrying out the required checks. People received their medicines safely by staff who had received guidance and training to make sure they remained competent.

People continued to receive effective care from staff. Staff received training, guidance and support to make sure that they had the required knowledge and skills.

People were satisfied with the food and drink available to them and they were supported to maintain their health.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service provided guidance in this practice.

People were supported by staff who knew people well and who were kind and compassionate. People’s dignity and privacy was maintained and staff communicated with people in ways that were important to them. People were supported to maintain their skills and were involved in decisions about their support where they could. Information about advocacy services was not available to people. The registered manager told us they would look at ways to help people to understand about these services and to provide information.

People received care in a supportive way that was based on their preferences and interests. Their support plans were focused on them as individuals and staff had up to date guidance about each person’s preferences and support requirements. People had opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

The provider’s complaints procedure was available to people and their family members. People’s relatives were confident that their concerns or complaints would be appropriately responded to.

People’s relatives and staff had opportunities to comment on the quality of the service. Improvements to communication were required as some staff and relatives did not always get the information they required.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities and received feedback on their work. They understood the aims that the provider strove to achieve.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities. This included them carrying out quality checks of the service to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas



Updated 6 October 2017

The service remained safe.



Updated 6 October 2017

The service remained effective.



Updated 6 October 2017

The service remained caring.



Updated 6 October 2017

The service remained responsive.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

People�s relatives and staff had opportunities to offer feedback on the quality of the service. Improvements were required to the communication relatives and staff received.

Staff received support and knew their responsibilities.

The registered manager was aware of their registration responsibilities with Care Quality Commission and they carried out quality checks on the service to drive improvement.