The Cedars Christian Residential 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 provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for the service under this provider. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always report feeling supported to take part in activities and maintain interests that were important to them.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed regarding the provision of activities. Whilst some people spoke positively about opportunities such as exercise sessions, church involvement and community links, others felt there could be a wider range of activities available or described a reduction in activities compared with the past. In addition, some staff told us the level of activity taking place during the inspection was not always reflective of everyday practice.

However, during our assessment we observed people participating in activities and spending time in communal areas. Staff engaged with people in a kind and person-centred way, discussing interests that were important to them. Activities were arranged throughout the week, and people were able to participate if they wished. People were supported to access activities and pursue their interests, although feedback indicated there were further opportunities to enhance these experiences for some people.

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.

Records showed people's care was reviewed and updated when changes occurred. Information about people's needs was shared between staff through handovers and care records, helping to ensure people received consistent support. Some relatives told us they had not seen care plans or were not aware of formal review processes. However, relatives consistently told us they were kept informed about changes to people's health and wellbeing and felt communication from the service was good. We found systems were in place to support the ongoing review and continuity of people's care.

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

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. One relative told us, "They always keep us informed of any updates."

Information was available to people in a format or language they could understand if requested. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs, what this meant for people and how to offer support with this.

The provider had supported people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and informed them about changes made to their care where appropriate.

People and relatives told us they would feel confident raising concerns directly with the management team. While some people recalled previously taking part in questionnaires to provide feedback about the service, several relatives told us they had not recently been involved in meetings, surveys or other formal consultation processes. This meant opportunities to gather and act on feedback were not always evident to everyone we spoke with.

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

Family members reported feeling confident staff were able the meet peoples need stating, "If [person] uses the call system, they more or less come straight away."

Although no concerns had been identified, there were processes in place that the registered manager could consider if concerns arose. Additionally during the inspection, we found people were actively being monitored and reviewed by medical practitioners where appropriate and ongoing reviews took place to ensure people could access healthcare service where required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care.

People were 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.

People were supported to express their wishes and preferences about their care. Care records included information about people's personal circumstances, important relationships, religious beliefs and aspects of care that were important to them. Where appropriate, records included decisions relating to future care, such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.