You are here


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cedar Lodge on 8 July 2021. 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 Cedar Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 3 July 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection visit took place on 8 July 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was completed by one inspector. Cedar Lodge is a care service and has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. Registering the Right Support CQC policy. This is the home’s first inspection with us since they were reregistered under a new provider in February 2017.

Cedar Lodge is situated in a village near Chesterfield. It is a large building with accommodation on two floors. Each level has their own lounge space and access to outside spaces. Some bedroom had ensuite facilities, others were located near a communal bathroom. The home is registered for ten people and at the time of our inspection nine people were living in the home.

Cedar Lodge had a registered manager who supported two locations for the provider.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. The service also had a deputy who provided support to the registered manager.

Professionals involved in people's care confirmed that the service was focused on individual’s needs. The provider had been able to meet people's needs where other services had not been able to support the person in the same way.

People were able to make decisions and their own choices. When they had a long term illness guidance was obtained to follow best practice. Staff received training which was bespoke to each person’s needs, this in turn provided clear relevant training for their role. Meals supported people nutritional requirements and innovative ways had been considered to promote good nutrition and dietary support.

Health care professionals had been regularly consulted to support people to achieve better outcomes for their health care and wellbeing. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People had been able to personalise their own space. The environment had been adapted to meet people’s needs. The home was cleaned to a high standard and the risk of infection was prevented due to schedules and processes in place.

People felt they were safe from harm and there were clear processes in place for reporting and reflected on practice. Risk assessments had been completed and any risks reviewed to consider how these could be reduced. There was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and when required reviews had taken place.

Medicine was managed safely and reviews had taken place to consider the levels of medicine people received and how that impacted on their wellbeing. We had received notification about events and incidents relating to the home.

People told us and we saw that positive relationships had been established. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way. Advocates were available to support people. Staff ensured people’s dignity was respected.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs which included how they required information and how to support their cultural and sexuality needs. Activities were available which met people’s interests and activity level. Complaints had been responded to.

People’s views had been consulted and improvements and changes made. Professionals felt that the provider had people’s needs and outcomes were the cornerstone of the service.

Audits had been used to make continuous changes to support peoples safety and life experienc