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 abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, infection control, health and safety checks, recruitment and incident reviews were found to be managed safely, although the staffing assessment tool needed strengthening.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with eating, drinking and health care, and the provider followed the Mental Capacity Act. Inspectors found that staff training was in place, but formal supervision and evidence of a full induction needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. People were involved in choices and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently personalised, and activities were not available during the inspection. Complaints were investigated and communication needs were assessed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had made significant progress with an action plan and had effective quality checks. Further work was still needed to improve staff morale and the culture of the home, and there was not yet a registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but personalised care plans and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered service. Inspectors visited on 30 January and 6 February 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable infection control, support with food and drink, access to health care, and kind and respectful staff.
The main weaknesses were under Responsive. Some care plans and risk assessments did not give enough personalised detail, and activities were not available during the inspection. Inspectors also asked the provider to improve how it checks staffing levels and inducts new staff. The service was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, and Requires Improvement for Responsive.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe and well cared for. Safeguarding concerns were investigated and staff knew how to raise concerns.
“People were happy with the care they received and said they felt safe.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received their medicines on time. The provider had added weekly audits to check that medicines procedures were followed.
“Medicines were managed safely. People confirmed they received their medicines when they were due.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and supported to make choices.
“People were treated well and supported to meet their needs. People confirmed they were happy with their care.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People were supported to eat and drink enough and to access health professionals when needed. Care records included relevant health and social care information.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Personalised care plans
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments lacked important detail about people's individual needs. Inspectors gave the example of missing information about what caused one person's distress and how staff should respond.
“The quality of care plans and risk assessments was inconsistent.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingNo activities took place during the inspection. People, relatives and staff said that opportunities for activities needed to improve, although the provider was recruiting activity staff.
“There were no activities taking place during our inspection.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingStaffing levels were maintained, but feedback about whether they were enough was mixed. High staff turnover was reported to affect the ability to meet people's needs fully.
“Staff turnover is ridiculous. There is a big staff turnover.” from the report
New-staff induction
needs fixingThe provider could not show that new staff had completed a sufficiently detailed induction or met the required standards. Inspectors recommended improving the induction process and evidence.
“Evidence was not available to show new staff had completed an in-depth induction programme and had reached the required standards.” from the report
Staff morale and culture
minorSome staff said morale was low and that the culture needed further improvement. The provider had plans to address this and was using senior staff support from another home.
“Although progress had been made, the provider and manager were open about the fact further work was needed to improve both staff morale and the culture in the home.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each week, and how are they matched to each person's interests and needs?
- 02Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed, and how do you make sure they include personalised information?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated now, taking account of the building layout and people's needs?
- 04What evidence can you show that new staff complete a full induction and are competent in their roles?
- 05What actions have been taken to improve staff morale, reduce turnover and support staff consistently?
This was an unannounced first inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the previous provider's Good rating was published on 23 August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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.
Every inspection of Cedar House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 February 2022.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.