The Cedars

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
People consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful, and told us they were treated with dignity in their day to day care. One person told us, “All the staff are very nice. My dignity is always respected,” People told us, staff spoke to them politely and took time to understand how they preferred care to be delivered.

Relatives we spoke with gave strong examples of compassion, particularly following incidents or when people were distressed. One relative described arriving after a fall and finding staff sitting on the floor holding their family member’s hand, saying they were “very touched” by the level of care and reassurance provided. Another relative told us, “Everyone here is really kind. You couldn’t get kinder staff anywhere.”

Staff respected people’s privacy during personal care, bathing and dressing, and people told us doors were closed, coverings were used appropriately and staff waited outside bathrooms when required. Emotional and spiritual needs were recognised, with staff supporting prayer, religious visits and meaningful family contact. One person told us, “They know me well and what I like,” a further person told us, “I feel safe here. They look after me.”
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were treated as individuals, with staff demonstrating a good understanding of people’s preferences, backgrounds, routines and personal needs. People told us staff knew them well and delivered care in ways that reflected their wishes. One person told us, “They know me well and what I like,” and another person told us, “They wash me how I like to be washed.”

Care plans included information about people’s preferred routines, likes, dislikes, spiritual needs and communication requirements, and staff described how they adapted their approach to support individuality. Examples included supporting personal appearance, recognising cultural and spiritual needs, and enabling people to spend time in their rooms or communal areas as they chose. One relative told us, “They are aware of what is important to them and maintain her dignity.”

Staff took account of people’s life history and identity, using photographs, family input and conversation to help personalise care. People and relatives spoke positively about staff humour, warmth and familiarity, with one person told us, “I have lots of laughs with the girls,” and another relative stating, “They take their time to get to know her and our family.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Some people felt their choice and control were limited at times, particularly around routines influenced by staffing patterns. People said getting up times, bedtimes and evening access to communal areas were not always flexible. One person told us, “There’s not as many carers on a morning,” and another said, “Everyone is in bed by the time the night staff come on.” Some care records did not clearly evidence changes to routines had been reviewed or agreed with people or their families.

People were supported to make choices and maintain independence wherever possible. People told us staff respected their wishes and involved them in everyday decisions about their care. One person told us, “They don’t have to ask me every time – they know me and I’m happy with that.”

Staff encouraged independence by supporting people to use their own mobility aids, choose how and where they spent their time, and take part in daily routines at their own pace. People were supported to eat independently where possible, with adapted equipment provided when needed. Relatives shared confidence in staff balancing safety and independence, with one stating, “They respect her wishes while keeping her safe.”

People were offered choice around personal care, including bathing, showering, clothing and mealtime preferences. Staff took steps to explain care clearly, particularly for people with sensory impairments or anxiety. Spiritual needs and personal routines were respected, with people supported to practise faith, maintain links with family and engage in familiar activities.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded promptly when they needed help and felt reassured support was available when required. People said call bells were answered quickly. One person told us, “When I press my buzzer they answer it very quickly,” and another person said, “If you need help they are there.” Relatives confirmed staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs.

People were supported with their immediate needs, such as pain relief, warmth, reassurance and healthcare access. For example, one person told us staff brought an extra quilt when they reported feeling cold, and others said staff provided medicines promptly when they felt unwell. Staff supported people who were anxious or distressed through calm communication, reassurance and spending time with them where possible.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff wellbeing was affected at times by staffing pressures and workload, which could impact responsiveness, particularly during mornings, evenings and mealtimes. Staff told us “staffing levels are not always enough to cater for residents’ needs,” and “sometimes work can feel very busy and there isn’t enough time to do more with people.” People echoed this, saying staff were kind but not always able to spend time talking or engaging due to workload demands.

The use of agency staff and staff turnover affected continuity and familiarity, which could reduce staff confidence and responsiveness for some people. We raised this concern with the registered manager during the assessment. The registered manager explained staff leaving was for various reasons, including performance, and the registered manager had a plan in place to ensure continuity of staff.

Despite these pressures staff wellbeing and enablement supported staff to respond to people’s needs in a compassionate and flexible way. Staff described a positive and supportive culture where they felt able to speak up, ask for help and raise concerns without fear. One staff member told us the service was “a safe space where I can express myself without feeling judged,” and another described it as “a friendly, warm environment where we support each other.” This supported staff to respond promptly and appropriately to people’s changing needs.

Staff told us they had access to training, supervision and management support, which helped them feel confident in their roles and able to reflect on practice. One staff member told us supervision and training “help me reflect and improve my practice,” which contributed to staff responding to people in a kind, safe and person‑centred way. Teamwork was described as strong, and staff worked together to prioritise care during busy periods.