Serenata Care Ltd Trading as Two Cedars

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.

This is the first inspection for this provider. This key question has been rated good.

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

This service scored 70 (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. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People spoke positively about staff. Comments included, “They are all very nice and they do their job very well. They don’t complain if you ask them to do extra things,” and, “The staff are lovely, we do have a laugh here. I am happy here and well looked after.” A relative told us, “The staff are attentive, friendly, and very helpful.” Professionals did not have any concerns about staff. We observed staff being polite and respectful with people.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans included details about their communication, relationships and lifestyle choices and spiritual needs. The provider worked with a local religious organisation and offered people the opportunity to attend weekly prayer meetings.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback from people about the activities on offer. One person said, “There is nothing to do here. We get someone for 1 hour some afternoons. It would be nice to have activities that we all can be involved in. I sit here like a lemon.” Another person told us, “They are quite good. Some of the quiz questions are quite hard.” This meant people were at risk of not having their emotional, social and cultural needs met. The provider told us they had recently appointed an activities coordinator for 2 hours a day during the week, however they were not yet working in the home. Following our feedback the manager told us they had increased the staffing levels during the day.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded to their call bells as promptly as possible. Records confirmed staff regularly checked people could access their call bells.Staff also told us they would report any concerns or changes in people's needs to ensure appropriate support was provided. When people required urgent support, for example after a fall, staff responded and involved external organisations where needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about the support provided by management, they said they felt valued and listened to. Staff said they felt able to speak openly with the manager and did not raise any concerns about being discriminated against. Staff completed person centred care training.

However, health questionnaires were not always completed as part of the recruitment process. In response to our feedback the manager told us they planned to review the existing processes and make changes to ensure consistency.