Cedar Lawn Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective - this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.People’ care needs were assessed and routinely reviewed, however, we found some of the care plans had contradictory information on how to support people. For example, the information on how often a person should be repositioned in bed or how to support them to take fluids.

Relatives told us they were involved in care for their family members. One relative said, “Reviews are done face to face and sometimes over the phone.” Another relative told us, “I was involved in the care plan creation when [family member] moved in but have not been invited for a review.”

People and relatives were mostly complimentary about the food at the service. One person said, “The food is excellent.” A relative told us,” The chefs are always very obliging in providing [family member] with choice of food.” However, we found that some people’s food preferences were not always catered for. The service made changes to ensure this was no longer the case and a new menu was being worked on at the time of the inspection.

Staff were observed supporting people with their meals in line with their wishes and preferences.

People were referred to the speech and language therapist (SALT). SALT is the Speech and Language Therapy who provide assessment of swallowing or communication difficulties for people with medical, neurological and surgical conditions.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.People and their relatives were satisfied information was shared appropriately within the service and outside to health professionals as required. One relative told us, “Staff are always respectful when speaking with the residents and trying to understand what they need.” Another relative said, “I have received a phone call from the nurse each time the doctor has needed to be contacted to prescribe medication.” Where necessary, referrals to external healthcare professionals were made in a timely manner.

Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive.A health and social care professionals said, “Staff at Cedar Lawn will always contact us to request a review and will always follow the care plan implemented.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The registered manager told us they worked well with external health and social care professionals, many of whom visited the service regularly.

The systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment were not consistently effective. The service did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Record keeping and monitoring of people’s ongoing health needed to improve.The registered manager responded to our concerns and implemented new systems to ensure compliance.

The principles of the MCA were not always being followed, and people were not always being protected. Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the MCA.

The provider did not have an overview of who can lawfully act on person’s behalf which meant that some relatives had signed as giving consent on behalf of people and there was no evidence they had the legal right to make those decisions.

People’s care plans did not always have a clear assessment of a person’s capacity in relation to some decisions. This meant we could not be sure the provider had a clear understanding of the MCA.

In response to our feedback the registered manager started the process of reviewing documentation relating to people’s capacity and introduced systems to ensure oversight.

Staff appeared to know people well.