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 enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment checks, risk monitoring, safe medicines arrangements and effective infection-control measures. People and relatives said they felt safe and did not have concerns about staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people with food, drink, specialist diets and healthcare needs. Staff had training and induction, and inspectors found that people's choices were respected.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff used audits, surveys, visits and incident reviews to monitor the service and make improvements. They worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Cedar Court Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with some refurbishment and hot-water work still being monitored.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 26 January 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led after concerns had been raised about staffing, recruitment, training, incident reporting, food choices, hot water, maintenance, bedding and towels.
Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment checks, medicines given as prescribed and suitable infection-control arrangements. Staff understood people's risks and preferences, supported food and fluid intake, and worked with health professionals.
The home had good systems for checking quality and learning from incidents. Hot-water problems found during the first visit had been resolved by the second visit, although refurbishment was not complete and one person wanted more dessert choices.
The overall rating was Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. The report used ratings from the previous inspection for key questions that were not examined.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable training and experience. Recruitment included checks designed to help ensure staff were suitable.
“There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines
People said medicines were given on time. Staff training and competency checks were in place, and medicine records were audited.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and staff ensured they followed infection prevention guidance and good practice.” from the report
Food and health support
Staff encouraged people to eat and drink enough and followed specialist dietary guidance, including for people at risk of choking. Staff also worked with health professionals.
“Staff encouraged people to eat healthily and drink enough.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify actions. Staff worked with other professionals to support people's wellbeing.
“The governance systems in place monitored the service provided and was effective in identifying and driving improvements.” from the report
Hot water
needs fixingHot water was intermittent in some areas during the first visit. Two new boilers had been installed and the issue was resolved by the second visit, but the home was still checking that it stayed resolved.
“During our first inspection visit we found and were told that in certain areas of the service the hot water could be intermittent.” from the report
Unfinished refurbishment
minorMuch of the refurbishment had been completed, but some planned areas were still unfinished at the time of inspection.
“However, there were still some areas that were planned for refurbishment but not yet completed.” from the report
Dessert choices
minorOne person said they wanted more dessert options. The manager said they would investigate this.
“One person told us they would like more dessert options.” from the report
- 01What checks have been made since the inspection to confirm that the hot-water problem remains resolved?
- 02Which refurbishment areas were still outstanding, and when are they expected to be completed?
- 03What dessert choices are now available, following the feedback raised during the inspection?
- 04How does the home make sure specialist diets and food textures remain correct for people at risk of choking?
- 05How will the home keep families updated about any outstanding DoLS applications?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for key questions not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2023 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, May 2021
Targeted inspection; the previous Good rating remained in place, and inspectors found people felt safe, with suitable risk and infection controls.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 29 April 2021. Inspectors checked concerns about falls, fire safety, kitchen staff training, and access to dining and lounge tables and seating. They also looked at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors spoke with one person and three staff members, observed care, reviewed three people's care records, and examined information about falls and risk assessments. They found people were happy with the home and staff, and that people felt safe.
Staff knew how to report possible harm. Risk assessments, fire safety checks, kitchen staff training, protective equipment, cleaning and infection control arrangements were found to be suitable.
The service was inspected but not rated at this visit. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 9 February 2018, and the report says that rating remained Good. This inspection did not assess the whole service or change the ratings.
People felt safe
The person inspectors spoke with said they felt safe and knew who they could speak to if they had concerns.
“One person told us they felt safe living at the home and would be able to speak with the registered manager or other staff if they had any concerns.” from the report
Safeguarding systems
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to protect people from harm and report concerns.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.” from the report
Risk and fire safety
Staff assessed risks to people's health, welfare and environment. Fire equipment, checks, clear fire doors and storage arrangements were described as being in place.
“Fire safety equipment was in place and safety checks had been carried out on extinguishers.” from the report
Kitchen staff training
Kitchen staff had the qualifications and updated training needed for their roles.
“This ensured that staff working in this area had the skills and knowledge to reduce risks to people and to keep them safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's use of protective equipment, cleaning, testing, social distancing, admissions and arrangements for visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Limited inspection
minorThis visit only checked specific concerns. It did not review the whole Safe question or the other four questions, so it does not provide a new full assessment of the home.
“We will assess all of the key question at the next comprehensive inspection of the service.” from the report
- 01When was the home's last comprehensive inspection, and what were the full ratings for all five questions?
- 02How are falls risks assessed and reviewed for each resident?
- 03How often are fire safety checks and personal evacuation plans reviewed?
- 04What training and qualifications do kitchen staff currently have?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about falls, fire safety, kitchen staff training, seating and infection control; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 2021 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 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.