CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cedar Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, medicines, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. The home was recruiting more staff, with current staff working additional hours and agency staff being used.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and monitored, and staff had relevant training and competence checks. People received support with nutrition and healthcare, including referrals to specialist services when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were caring, respectful and considerate. People were involved in everyday choices, and care plans included their communication needs, preferences and wishes.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and gave staff detailed guidance about people's routines and preferences. People were offered activities, support to keep in touch with family and friends, and help to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager received consistently positive feedback from relatives and staff. Audits, incident reviews and feedback were used to make improvements, including changes to menus and the laundry system.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff recruitment still ongoing.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 November 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and the home's management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines and infection control were managed well. Staff knew people and their needs, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Care plans were person-centred and included people's preferences. People were supported with activities, visitors, communication and healthcare. The home had improved since the previous inspection because the Responsive rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good.
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and audited safely. Inspectors were also assured that the home had effective infection prevention measures and met COVID-19 vaccination requirements for workers and visiting professionals.
“Systems to manage medicines were well organised and ensured safe and timely administration of medicines to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, positive interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and choices.
“We saw positive interactions between people and staff that were caring and kind.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes, communication methods and preferred routines. Staff knew these preferences and followed them.
“Care plans were personalised. Care plans gave detailed guidelines for staff to support people's individual preferences.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were offered activities based on their interests and were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends, including through video calls.
“People were offered the opportunity to participate in a range of activities.” from the report
Responsive management
The home used feedback and reviews to make changes. Improvements included involving people in menu choices and speeding up the return of personal laundry.
“Feedback from people, their relatives and staff was used to make improvements in the home.” from the report
Recruitment and use of agency staff
needs fixingThe home was recruiting more nursing and care staff. Existing staff were working additional hours and agency staff were being used, although inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe at the time of the inspection.
“The provider was actively recruiting to increase the number of nursing and care staff at the service.” from the report
Refurbishment work
minorThe home was carrying out refurbishment, including communal areas. Damage to a bathroom floor was seen during the inspection, although it was replaced soon afterwards.
“Damage to the flooring in a bathroom was seen during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How many nursing and care staff are currently employed, and how often are agency staff or additional hours needed?
- 02How will the refurbishment programme affect residents, and what work is still outstanding?
- 03How do you check that each person's care plan still reflects their current preferences and needs?
- 04How are activities planned for people who prefer one-to-one or quieter activities?
- 05How will relatives be told about changes in a person's health, care or daily routine?
This was an inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the previous overall rating was Good and the previous Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Cedar Court Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but personal care and activities were not always tailored to people's needs.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were kind, and leaders monitored the service.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Care plans were basic and did not always reflect people's preferences. Staff did not always have time to provide meaningful activities, and some people did not feel involved in their care.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches of regulation. This inspection found enough improvement for the home to be no longer in breach.
People felt safe
People and families said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe. Families we spoke with also told us they felt their loved ones were in a safe place.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff training and checks of nurses' competence were in place.
“Medicines were managed safely, stored and administered in compliance with best practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking compassionately with people. People said their dignity and privacy were respected.
“Throughout the day we saw staff speaking with people in a caring and compassionate manner.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. The home used audits, meetings and supervision to improve practice.
“We received positive feedback on the management and leadership of the service.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the previous breaches and improved its safe care, dignity and leadership arrangements.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Care was not always personalised
needs fixingCare plans were basic and did not always record people's preferences or personal history. Some people did not feel involved in deciding how their care should be given.
“People's care had not always been planned in a personalised way.” from the report
Activities were sometimes missed
needs fixingNot everyone had the chance to take part in meaningful activities every day. Inspectors did not see planned activities taking place when the activities worker was unavailable.
“Opportunities to provided activities were sometimes missed.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingPeople and relatives generally felt there were enough staff, but staff said they were too busy to provide the service they wanted. Inspectors said staffing levels would continue to be monitored.
“Staff, however, told us they did not think there were enough staff to enable them to provide a good service.” from the report
Meals were inconsistent
minorPeople gave mixed views about the meals. Some said food was often not hot enough, and inspectors raised concern about one meal option not being particularly balanced.
“Some people told us the meals were not very good and were often 'luke warm.'” from the report
- 01How have you rewritten care plans so they record each person's preferences and personal history?
- 02How do you make sure people are involved in decisions about how their personal care is provided?
- 03What activities are available when the activities worker is not on duty?
- 04How do you check that there are enough staff to give people time for care and activities?
- 05What changes have been made to improve the temperature and nutritional balance of meals?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that considered all five CQC areas, including care, safety, staffing, records and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Cedar Court Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.