CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Cedar Lodge Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Cedar Lodge Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with refurbishment still under way.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 1 October 2019. The inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was supporting 29 people, although it could support up to 36. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines processes and good infection control. People had individual risk assessments and access to health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, complaints were recorded and investigated, and people were supported to eat, drink, socialise and take part in activities. The building was being refurbished during the inspection.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service consistently met people's needs and was managed effectively at the time of the visit. The previous rating was also Good.
Enough trained staff
People were supported by enough staff, including cover for nurse vacancies. Recruitment checks were described as robust, and staff had training to recognise abuse and manage complex behaviour.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were able to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw staff respect people's choices and privacy, including knocking before entering bedrooms.
“People told us the staff treated them well. People used words such as "supportive", "friendly" and "kind" to describe the staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and health risks. Life histories helped staff understand people and have more meaningful conversations.
“People's care was personalised to their needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used audits, meetings and checks to monitor care, incidents and the environment. Inspectors found that identified actions were completed promptly.
“Regular audits, meetings and checks were carried out to ensure the service was being delivered in line with the regulations.” from the report
Hand sanitiser arrangements
minorInspectors questioned the lack of hand sanitiser around the home. The home said bottles had presented a hazard for some people and that alternative arrangements were being explored.
“We questioned the lack of hand sanitiser around the home and were advised that due to some people's behaviours, the bottles had presented a hazard.” from the report
No activity lead
minorThe home did not have an activity lead at the time of inspection. Activities were taking place, but families may want to check how this is organised and maintained.
“The service didn't currently have an activity lead however on the day of inspection we saw a weekly active session being held.” from the report
Possible loneliness
minorOne person said they could feel lonely because many other people could not talk to them. The home had social activities and community links, but this is worth discussing for someone who needs company.
“It can get a bit lonely here, as a lot of the people can't talk to me.” from the report
- 01How has the refurbishment progressed since the inspection, and which bedrooms or communal areas are still affected?
- 02How are activities organised now that there was no activity lead at the inspection?
- 03What alternative hand hygiene arrangements are in place where hand sanitiser bottles could present a hazard?
- 04How do you support residents who may feel lonely or find it difficult to communicate with other residents?
- 05How many nurse vacancies remain, and how often are nurses from the provider's agency service used?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 personalised care, with tired décor needing refurbishment.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 and 7 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, complaints, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable staff training, kind care and personalised support. People were involved in decisions about their care and relatives said they could raise concerns.
The home had quality checks and a registered manager in post. Inspectors noted that the décor looked tired and needed refurbishment. The owner said this had been recognised and that improvement work was being considered.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks were assessed and reviewed. Medicines were given as prescribed and recorded properly.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely and as prescribed” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with patience and compassion. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity and encouraged to remain independent.
“We saw that staff were attentive and had a kind and caring approach towards people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and ways of communicating. Staff responded to changing needs, including arranging liquid medicine when someone had difficulty swallowing.
“We saw detailed, personalised care plans that identified how people liked to receive their care.” from the report
Complex needs
Inspectors found that staff could support people with dementia-related behaviour and used calm, reassuring approaches. Staff understood people's triggers and how to respond.
“The manager and staff are very calm, they use de-escalation techniques very well” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
At the previous inspection, the home needed to provide suitable aids at mealtimes. Inspectors saw that a range of cups and cutlery had since been provided.
“During this visit we saw that the home had provided a range of cups and cutlery to support people to eat and drink in comfort.” from the report
Tired décor
minorInspectors said the home's décor looked tired and needed refurbishment. The owner said this had been recognised, but the report does not say that the work had been completed.
“We saw that the homes décor looked tired and in need of refurbishment.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment has been carried out since inspectors said the décor looked tired?
- 02How would you assess and review my relative's risks and changing health needs?
- 03How would staff support my relative if they have dementia-related distress or behaviour that becomes difficult to manage?
- 04How would my relative be involved in decisions about their care if they cannot always communicate verbally?
- 05How are medicines, including medicines given when needed, checked and recorded?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous inspection on 5 February 2015 had also rated the home Good overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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 Lodge Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.