Serenata Care Ltd Trading as Two Cedars

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.

This is the first inspection for this provider. This key question has been 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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plan included details around their family background, interests, and preferences. Care plans provided person-centred guidance directing staff how to support people with oral health, eating and drinking and daily tasks.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care plans confirmed input from external professionals which were was accessible to staff. An external professional told us staff knew people well and worked with them to ensure good outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. The provider had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy. The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. We were assured this service met the requirements of the AIS.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Prior to our inspection, the provider was not operating systems to routinely gain feedback from people. However, the recently appointed manager was working to make improvements. A recent residents’ meeting had been held, and the manager told us they planned to hold resident and family meetings in the future. However, these systems required time to become embedded and sustained. People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff or the manager.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records we reviewed showed relevant external professionals were contacted for support, ensuring people received the support and treatment they required. Staff told us the home regularly liaised with external professionals, such as GPs.

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 provider had sought people’s views through a survey, however, the feedback was lost and not acted upon. This shortfall had not been addressed, and further feedback was not sought. The manager told us of their plans to introduce a suggestions box to gather feedback from people, relatives, and staff. The provider was in the process of implementing new policies, including in relation to equality and diversity.

People were not always 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.

Information regarding do not attempt resuscitation orders (DNACPR) were clearly documented and visible to staff. People had end of life care plans in place; however, they required developing to include more person-centred information around wishes and preferences. Management told us of their plans to improve end of life care plans. At the time of this inspection, the service was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.