CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedar House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, risks were assessed and staffing levels were based on people's needs. Medicines were managed safely and the home was clean, although the safeguarding policy needed rewriting in clearer language.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported people with food, drink, mobility and health needs. Assessments did not always cover risk or protected characteristics, and the manager agreed to update them.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions about their care, routines and personal preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff responded to people's needs and provided varied activities, accessible information and end-of-life support. One care plan needed clearer instructions, and the complaints procedure needed updating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable management, supportive teamwork and quality checks. Records of meetings needed clearer action points and clearer information about who attended.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and policies needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 22 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people living at the home, one relative and staff. They also checked care records, medicines, staffing, accidents, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean premises, kind staff and a wide choice of activities.
People were involved in their care and daily routines. Visitors could come at any time. The home had made improvements since the previous inspection, including refurbishment, another dining area and improvements to fire safety, records, medicines management and storage.
A Good rating means the inspection found the service met the regulator's requirements and provided good care at that time. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Staffing and safety
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff knew people's risks and had clear arrangements for emergencies and medicines.
“The home was well-staffed, and people said they didn't have to wait long for staff assistance if they rang their call bells.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They knew people's histories, preferences and routines.
“We observed many caring interactions between staff and the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered a broad programme of activities, including trips, crafts, exercise, pet therapy and entertainment. People were not pressured to join in.
“Group and individual activities included arts and crafts, exercise classes, pet therapy, and visiting entertainers.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as approachable and involved in people's wellbeing. The home used meetings, surveys and quality checks to gather views and make improvements.
“The registered manager or deputy spoke to every person every day to check on their well-being and ensure they were happy with their care.” from the report
Safeguarding policy
minorThe safeguarding policy was difficult to read and needed rewriting in simpler language. This was a minor policy weakness rather than a reported safety failure.
“The safeguarding policy would benefit from being re-written to make it less complex and easier to read.” from the report
Initial assessments
needs fixingAssessments did not always consider risk or protected characteristics such as race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. The manager agreed to make the assessment form more complete.
“The home's person-centred assessments covered people's health and social care needs, including their oral health needs, but did not always consider risk or the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingOne care plan did not give staff clear enough instructions about how to comfort and distract a person who became distressed. The manager said it would be updated.
“One person's care plan for distressed behaviour needed updating so it gave staff clear instructions of how to comfort and distract the person.” from the report
Complaints procedure
needs fixingThe complaints procedure did not clearly explain the roles of the local authority and CQC. The home did keep a record of complaints and actions taken.
“The home's complaint procedure needed updating to make it clear what the local authority's and CQC's roles were when complaints are made.” from the report
Meeting records
minorMinutes did not always make clear who had attended meetings or what action would follow. The manager agreed to improve this.
“Staff meetings minutes would benefit from an 'actions' section at the end to show how matters raised have been taken forward.” from the report
- 01Has the safeguarding policy been rewritten in simpler language, and how are staff kept up to date with it?
- 02Have care assessments been updated to cover risks and people's protected characteristics?
- 03Has the care plan for distressed behaviour been updated with clear instructions for staff?
- 04Has the complaints procedure been updated to explain the roles of the local authority and CQC?
- 05Is the move to the new person-centred care record system complete, and how do managers check that records remain accurate?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but some records and staff training needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment and training files, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors also found that people's needs were assessed, medicines were generally given as prescribed, activities were available and management was approachable.
There were some weaknesses. Cream application records were not always signed, some food and drink records were incomplete, and some care plans lacked enough detail. Not all staff had completed safeguarding or other relevant training. The home remained Good, as inspectors found these issues did not prevent people receiving good care overall.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff speaking gently, respecting privacy and involving people in choices about their care and daily life.
“Throughout our visit we observed the staff team treating people in a thoughtful and caring way.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home provided both group and one-to-one activities, with an activities leader visiting people regularly.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.” from the report
Support with health and food
People had access to relevant health professionals and were offered meal choices and diets suited to their needs.
“A balanced and nutritious diet was provided and meal choices were always offered.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives, staff and visiting professionals described the management team as approachable and responsive to concerns.
“The service was appropriately managed and the management team were open and approachable.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords for applying creams were not always signed. Some creams, eye drops and oral solutions had not been dated when opened.
“When we checked the cream chart for two of the people using the service, it was evident that these were not being routinely signed with a number of gaps within the recording noted.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans were too basic and did not clearly describe what staff should do to meet the person's needs.
“The information was at times basic in content and didn't always explain to the reader the actions to be taken to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and drink records
needs fixingFood and fluid charts did not always record evening snacks and drinks accurately. Inspectors also found that quality checks had not always spotted these omissions.
“We did note that these did not always evidence additional prompts of snacks or drinks and some did not show that drinks were offered after 6pm.” from the report
Staff training
minorNot all staff had completed training in safeguarding and other areas such as health and safety, falls prevention and fire awareness. Further training was being arranged.
“Not all of the staff team had received training on the safeguarding of adults but this was in the process of being arranged.” from the report
- 01Have all cream application records, opened medicine dates and eye-drop records been checked and kept up to date?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans clearly explain the actions staff must take for each person's needs?
- 03How are snacks and drinks after 6pm recorded and checked?
- 04Have all staff completed safeguarding, health and safety, falls prevention, fire awareness, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training?
- 05How are outstanding healthcare follow-ups, such as blood tests, tracked to completion?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas of quality, and the report says the Good rating from March 2015 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 June 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.