Cedarwood Lodge (Active Prospects)

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 changes in people’s needs.

Relatives said staff ensured their family members received personalised care which met their individual needs. One relative told us, "They do their very best to tailor things to the needs of the individual."

People’s care plans reflected their physical, emotional and social needs. Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their care and included their families in care planning and reviews.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them and their needs well. Relatives told us staff worked well as a team to ensure people’s needs were met. One relative said, “The staff all seem to get on with each other, and they all pull together, the way they divide the work up between them.”

Professionals told us people received consistent support from staff who understood their needs well. One professional said, ‘There is a stable staff team and those I have meet came across as kind and responsive to individual’s needs.’

People had access to appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to their individual needs.

The provider arranged regular feedback meetings for people who used services where complaints, compliments and lessons learned were shared. These meetings were also used to share information and advice, such as a fire safety presentation and meal planning workshops.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. For example, the provider used easy read surveys following workshops for people who used services to gather feedback. Documents such as the provider’s complaints procedure were also available in easy read format, which helped ensure people knew how to raise concerns if necessary.

People who used the provider’s services, their families, and staff were asked for their feedback in an annual survey. Relatives told us their suggestions for improvements to their family members’ experience and outcomes were listened to and acted on. One relative said, "I have requested certain things to be done for [family member], which they have done. If I make a suggestion, they do follow it through. I am really pleased about that."

The provider was committed to involving people who used services in the design, delivery and monitoring of local services. For example, people had opportunities to become ‘quality checkers’ carrying out quality monitoring visits to the provider’s care services.

The provider had worked on several coproduction initiatives with groups led by people who used services, such as Surrey People’s Group, a network for people with a learning disability supported by Surrey County Council which fed into the Learning Disability Partnership Board.

The provider also supported people who used services to contribute to the development and improvement of wider issues relevant to people with learning disability and autistic people. For example, people had opportunities to attend and contribute to conferences, workshops and forums run by Learning Disability England.

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

Leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people in accessing care and support. The provider used feedback to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing care.

The provider had contributed to projects to improve access to services and healthcare provision for people with a learning disability, autistic people, and people with reasonable adjustment needs across Surrey.

People’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights. People’s experiences were listened to and acted on to improve care. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this. For example, one person was sometimes reluctant to attend scheduled healthcare appointments. Staff recognised that this put the person at risk of experiencing poor health outcomes and spoke to the person’s GP. The manager told us an arrangement had been agreed whereby staff would encourage the person to attend appointments, “As we want to get him to experience everything that is in his local community", but if the person declined, a community nurse from the GP surgery would visit them at home.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they would have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff had worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received the care they needed towards the end of their lives. For example, a community nurse had provided training to the staff team which was specific to one person’s needs.

Professionals told us the care staff had provided to people towards the end of their lives kind, caring and compassionate. One professional described the care staff had provided as, “Exemplary.”