CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedar House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and protected. Inspectors found individual risk assessments, enough staff, robust recruitment checks and systems for administering medicines safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health, diet and independence were promoted. Inspectors found support plans were developed with appropriate guidance and other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. People were involved in their support plans and had choice over their activities, privacy and daily routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, communication styles and goals. People could access the community, maintain relationships and hobbies, and use information in formats they understood.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff found the manager approachable, and inspectors found an open culture and systems for monitoring quality. The provider and manager used feedback, audits and partnership working to improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Cedar House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end of life planning needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 09 January 2020. One inspector spoke with three people, four staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People felt safe, staff knew them well, and people were involved in decisions about their care, activities and daily lives.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, individual risk assessments and good support with health, food, communication and community activities. The home was also found to promote choice, independence and relationships.
The report made one recommendation. Staff had not discussed people's end of life preferences with them, so the home was asked to review best practice in this area. The previous overall rating was also Good.
People felt safe
The home had systems to protect people from abuse and keep their belongings safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns.
“People felt safe and protected in the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs and preferences well. People helped shape their support plans and were supported to make choices and build independence.
“Staff knew people's needs well and delivered care as detailed in their support plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff adapted their communication and supported people to express their views.
“Staff responded to people in a kind and caring manner and people were comfortable with staff.” from the report
Open leadership
People and staff said the manager was approachable. Inspectors found systems for gathering feedback, checking quality and making improvements.
“People told us that they found the registered manager to be approachable.” from the report
End of life wishes were not discussed
needs fixingAt the time of inspection, no one was receiving end of life care. However, staff had not discussed people's end of life preferences, and inspectors recommended that the home review best practice and take appropriate action.
“Staff had not discussed people's preferences for the end of their life with people.” from the report
- 01How will you discuss and record each person's end of life preferences in a way they can understand?
- 02What action have you taken following the recommendation about end of life planning?
- 03How are people involved in setting and reviewing their personal goals and daily activities?
- 04How do you adapt communication for people who need pictorial information or communication passports?
- 05How do you check that medicines remain safe and that staff are competent to administer them?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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, May 2017
Cedar House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 April 2017. One inspector spoke with a person using the service, the manager and support staff. They reviewed care files, staff records, audits and policies, and observed care.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and appropriate recruitment checks. Staff were trained and supported people with their health, food, drink and everyday choices.
Inspectors found staff to be kind and respectful. Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. People and relatives were involved in care reviews, and people were supported with activities, independence and personal goals.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspection found the home meeting the relevant standards at that time, with no breaches reported.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's needs, with extra staff when people went into the community. Medicines were stored and recorded safely.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's assessed needs and when people accessed the community additional staff were deployed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They listened to people's wishes and supported their choices.
“Our observations during the inspection showed staff to be kind, caring and support people in a compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, strengths and independence needs. Staff updated them when people's needs changed.
“These were fully person centred and gave detailed guidance for staff so that staff could consistently deliver the care and support the person needed” from the report
Involvement and independence
People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and pursue activities and personal goals.
“Staff always worked hard to promote people's independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed decisions.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The manager carried out monthly audits of care files, medicines and staff records. Actions were checked at later audits.
“The registered manager carried out a number of quality monitoring audits on a monthly basis as to ensure the continued improvement of the quality of the service provided to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that staffing levels remain enough for each person's needs, especially when people go into the community?
- 02How are medicines checked, including records of administration and support for people who may be able to take some medicines themselves?
- 03How are care plans updated when a person's needs, preferences or risks change, and how are families involved?
- 04What activities and personal goals would you support my relative to pursue?
- 05How do you use audits, staff meetings and feedback from people and relatives to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and each rating remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums 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.