We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cedarwood Lodge (Active Prospects) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cedarwood Lodge (Active Prospects), you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection of this service on 20 October 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The home demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
The home did not have a registered manager in post. The previous registered manager left employment in October 2017. The current manager had managed the home for three months. They were knowledgeable about the requirements of a registered manager and their responsibilities with regard to the Health and Social Care Act 2014. At the time of this inspection they were in the process of applying to the CQC to become the registered manager for the home.
There were safeguarding procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. We observed a good staff presence and staff told us there was always enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working at the home. Action was taken to assess any risks to people using the service. People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.
People’s needs were assessed and care files included detailed information and guidance for staff about how their needs should be met. Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people needs. The provider had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation. People’s care plans included assessments of their dietary needs and preferences. People were encouraged to eat healthy meals and cook for themselves. Staff monitored people’s mental and physical health and where there were concerns people were referred to appropriate health professionals.
Not all of the people using the service were able to communicate verbally, however people’s care records included communication profiles that recorded their specific methods of communicating with staff. Care plans included a section that referred to their lifestyles and cultural needs. Care records were also person centred and included people’s views about how they wished to be supported. The home had a complaints procedure in place. This was available in a format that most people could understand.
The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service they provided to people. They took into account of people’s views of the service through surveys and meetings. Staff said they enjoyed working at the home and they received good support from the manager.
This inspection took place on the 5 and 6 February 2015 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection on 29 May 2013, we found that there were no breaches of the legal requirements.
Cedarwood Lodge provides accommodation and care for up to five people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.
The service has a registered manager who was available and supported us during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s needs and wishes were understood and met by staff who had received training in communicating effectively with people. An effective system was in place to gather the views of people or involve people in the development of the service.
The provider had systems in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew how to report suspected abuse and their responsibilities for doing so.
People’s health and support needs were assessed and recorded. There were plans in place to reduce the risks identified in assessments.
People were supported by enough staff. Recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks to make sure their nutritional needs were met. People were supported and enabled to participate in activities of their choice.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. We found the home to be meeting the requirements for DoLS.
People were supported in a way that promoted their dignity by being spoken to kindly and treated with respect. Staff were caring in their approach to people, giving them attention and not rushing people when supporting them.
Care plans were developed with people to identify how they wished to be supported and goals they wanted to achieve. Plans were regularly reviewed and up to date.
Staff told us they felt supported in their work and felt comfortable raising concerns with the manager or to suggest ideas for improvement. Staff said they found the registered manager to be responsive in dealing with any concerns raised and took immediate action.
The provider analysed and acted on information acquired from quality audits to monitor and improve the quality of care.
One person had wanted a more suitable wheelchair so they could self propel and told us how pleased they were they had got it and how they were now able to move around the building more independently.
We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
We found the provider had taken steps to provide care in a home that was suitably designed and adequately maintained.
We saw that staff received appropriate professional development and support.
We saw that people's choices were included by involving them in the process of care planning by providing documents in pictorial or audible formats, or they were read out and explained by a key worker.
A person who uses the service showed us their room and how they had individualised it, and showed us pictures of their recent holidays.
We saw that the provider minimises risk and the likelihood of abuse by making sure all the policies and procedures to promote safeguarding were in place.
We saw that there were sufficient staff throughout the lunch time period, and previous preparation for the day, to assist all those who needed it.
We saw that feedback questionnaires had been sent out to the relatives of people using the service and health care professionals to gain their views and experiences in the way the service was provided, and that new feedback questionnaires were planned.
We saw there were house meetings and key-worker meetings to seek the views of people and involve them in their care and treatment and the running of the home. One person told us how they had wanted a different kind of wheelchair and had now got it.