CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedar Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but safety checks, infection control and management oversight were not reliable.
This was a focused inspection on 14 and 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, looked around the home, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People and relatives said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable protective equipment and good working relationships with healthcare services. However, some areas and equipment were dirty, risks were not always properly assessed, and medicines were not always given at the correct times.
The home was not being managed consistently. Audits had missed important problems, records were not always secure, and there was no manager registered with CQC at the time. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement. The provider was told to send an action plan and will be checked again.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's care needs, and recruitment checks were completed safely.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and received safe care.
“All relatives expressed that they felt their loved ones received safe care.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment supplies were managed well and staff were seen using the appropriate equipment.
“PPE stock levels were well managed, and staff were observed wearing the appropriate PPE.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors found a welcoming atmosphere. Relatives said they were kept informed about issues.
“We found there was a warm and welcoming atmosphere.” from the report
Working with other services
Staff had positive relationships with other agencies and contacted healthcare services when people needed support.
“The management team and staff had positive relationships with other agencies and services to ensure people received the support they needed.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome areas and equipment were dirty, and COVID-19 entry checks were not always completed. This was found to place people at risk of harm.
“Some areas of the service were dirty which increased the risk of infection.” from the report
Risk assessments
seriousCare records were not always up to date and did not always explain how known risks should be managed. Inspectors also found unassessed risks from animals, bed rails and stored combustible items.
“Care records did not contain the most up to date information and risks were not effectively monitored or assessed.” from the report
Medicines timing
needs fixingSome medicines were not given at the times prescribed, including medicines that needed to be taken with food or before food. Inspectors made a recommendation for improvement.
“For example, people who were prescribed medicine to be taken with food, and medicine to be taken 60 minutes before food, received their medication at the same time.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and other checks did not consistently identify or deal with problems. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Governance systems were not consistently used to identify shortfalls and address concerns in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What has been done to clean and maintain the catering equipment and other areas identified as dirty?
- 02How are you now checking that each person's risk assessment and care plan is up to date, including risks from pressure damage, bed rails and animals?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are given at the times stated by the prescriber?
- 04Have the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches been fully addressed, and can we see the action plan or evidence of the changes?
- 05Has the manager applied to register with CQC, and who is currently responsible for oversight of the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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 2019
Cedar Grange was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities needing better access for everyone.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 12 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment checks, training records, complaints and other documents.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were respectful. Inspectors found that medicines were given safely and on time, staff were suitably trained, and care was planned around people's needs and preferences.
People and relatives were involved in care planning and could give feedback. The home worked with health professionals and used checks and feedback to improve. Activities were available, but some people said they were mainly in the main building and not easy for everyone to access.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and confident with staff. Inspectors found clear risk guidance, enough staff and appropriate recruitment checks.
“People felt safe, confident and happy when being supported by staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff understood people's preferences and interests. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing care plans.
“People's needs and information on how best to meet their preferences were identified, met and reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff communicated compassionately and supported people's dignity, choices and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had an open culture, regular checks and leaders who listened to feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“The culture of the service was open, honest, caring and fully focused on people's individual needs.” from the report
Activities were not equally accessible
needs fixingSome people enjoyed trips and activities, but others did not want to go to the main building where activities took place. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“The activities only happen in the main house and I don't want to go over there.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make activities available to people who do not want to go to the main building?
- 02How will you find out about my relative's preferences and keep their care plan up to date?
- 03How many staff will usually be on duty when my relative needs care?
- 04How will you involve me and my relative in decisions about care and feedback?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given safely and on time?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the care home premises and care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 2019 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 Grange
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2015.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.