You are here

Archived: Cedar House Care Home

The partners registered to provide this service have changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 September 2012
Date of Publication: 20 October 2012
Inspection Report published 20 October 2012 PDF | 87.9 KB

People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights (outcome 7)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse, and their human rights are respected and upheld.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we have gathered about Cedar House Care Home, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 24 September 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care, talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We talked with the visiting health care professional and the environmental health officer.

Our judgement

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Reasons for our judgement

People told us they felt safe living at Cedar House Care Home. One person said “Although I like my home I feel safer here knowing that staff will help me if I fall again.” Another person said “I’m quite happy and settled here. I go out with my family whenever I wish.”

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Risk assessments were in place to support and maintain people’s safety. For example, staff using the correct moving and handling techniques. We observed people moved around the service independently or were supported safely by staff. People’s liberty was not restricted and staff responded to people’s requests in a timely manner.

All the staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and this had been updated annually. The staff training matrix and records viewed confirmed this. The service had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff spoken with showed a clear understanding of their responsibilities with regards to the safeguarding and what they would do if they suspected someone was being abused.

Staff told us the service had a whistle-blowing policy in place and understood their responsibility to report concerns about poor or unsafe delivery of care. Staff were confident to report any concerns if witnessed that affected the health and safety of people using the service.

The service provided people with secure facility to keep their money and valuables safe. Three people told us that they managed their own finances with help from their relative.

The registered manager and the staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, deprivation of liberty safeguards and their role in its application. The Act is designed to protect people who cannot make decisions for themselves or lack the mental capacity to do so on a permanent or temporary basis. The registered manager and staff were aware that a person’s liberty must only be deprived when it was in their best interest and would refer concerns to the local authority.