CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedar Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found kind, personalised care, while minor premises issues needed attention.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 22 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and some health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and quality records.
The home supported 12 people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people well and helped them build skills, take part in activities, maintain relationships and move towards greater independence.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led improved from Good at the previous inspection to Outstanding. Inspectors found strong leadership and quality checks, but noted that part of the laundry flooring was damaged and the staff toilet did not have suitable hand-washing facilities.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's wishes, communication methods and goals well. Support helped people gain skills, manage anxiety and move towards more independent living.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw relaxed and affectionate interactions. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring, helpful and supportive.
“People benefited from compassionate support provided by a kind, committed and caring staff team.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff to meet assessed needs, and people were supported by staff they knew. Medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“People received their medicines when they should. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.” from the report
Strong leadership
Managers and directors worked alongside staff, sought feedback and used audits and reviews to improve the service.
“The service had robust and effective governance systems in place to ensure their ethos, values and objectives were embedded.” from the report
Staff toilet facilities
needs fixingThe staff toilet did not have suitable hand-washing facilities at the inspection. The home said it had ordered a sink.
“The staff toilet did not have suitable hand washing facilities. Following our inspection, the registered manager told us they had ordered a sink.” from the report
Damaged laundry flooring
needs fixingPart of the laundry flooring was no longer intact after washing machines were replaced. The home said new flooring was planned.
“Due to the replacement, part of the flooring was no longer intact. The provider told us they had planned for new flooring to be put down.” from the report
Larger-than-guidance setting
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the layout and operation as two separate units reduced the negative impact.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Has the sink now been installed in the staff toilet, and how are hand-washing arrangements checked?
- 02Has the damaged laundry flooring been replaced, and was the work completed without affecting people's safety or routines?
- 03How are the two separate units working in practice, and has the planned additional kitchen been added?
- 04How will you support my relative's specific communication method, interests and independence goals?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care reviews and decisions about their support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five rating areas, and CQC looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 July 2017. One inspector looked at care plans, medicines records, staff files, the building and quality records. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, management and a visitor, and contacted three professionals.
The home supported 11 young adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and support, and care plans that explained people's health needs, communication and anxiety. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to build independence through activities and daily tasks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the May 2016 inspection. Inspectors found stronger quality checks, better support plans and safer recruitment systems.
Improved oversight
The home had introduced stronger audits, feedback and action plans. Inspectors said this was a clear improvement from the previous inspection.
“On this inspection we found improved systems had been put in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, signs of anxiety and ways staff could help. Plans also included personal aspirations and steps towards independence.
“Positive support plans and communication strategies helped identify potential signs and causes of anxiety or distress and how to support the person to reduce this.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and respectfully. People were encouraged to take part in daily life and develop skills at their own pace.
“We saw examples of people being supported with patience and kindness.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities suited to their interests, including shopping, college, work experience, outings and sport. They were also supported with tasks such as cooking, laundry and budgeting.
“People were encouraged to develop life skills such as doing their own laundry and cookery.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, including one-to-one support where required. Medicines records showed people received medicines as prescribed, with audits in place.
“There were enough staff to support people and enable them to safely follow activities of their choosing.” from the report
Supervision sometimes slipped
minorThe manager aimed to supervise staff every six weeks, but this did not always happen on time. Staff could ask for extra support when needed.
“The registered manager told us they aimed to provide supervision for each staff member every six weeks, but that at times this slipped slightly.” from the report
Some medicine policy work unfinished
minorA pharmacist had identified minor improvements needed in medicines guidance. Some changes had been partly completed and others were still in progress.
“They had completed a report which contained some minor areas for improvement, for example changes to a policy to update guidance.” from the report
Liberty applications delayed
needs fixingApplications had been made where required, but some had not yet been authorised because of delays by the local authority. The manager was following this up.
“These had not yet been granted due to delays in the system but the registered manager remained in contact with the authorising authority to remind them of the need to progress the applications.” from the report
- 01How often is each staff member currently receiving supervision, and what happens if a session is delayed?
- 02What changes were made to the medicines policy after the pharmacist's report, and have all the actions now been completed?
- 03Which people have Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations, and how are any outstanding applications being followed up?
- 04How do staff find all the information they need when a person's support plan is spread across several documents or systems?
- 05How will you review the improvements identified in the 2017 inspection and share the results with families?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions; some people could not directly share their experiences, so inspectors also used observation and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2017 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 2014.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £980 to £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.