CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedars Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines were safely managed, risk assessments were detailed and staffing levels were suitable. People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had a detailed induction, regular training and support meetings. Staff understood people's health needs and worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were patient and respectful. Inspectors saw warm interactions, and people were involved in care planning and running the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, accurate and regularly reviewed. Activities, education and goals were based on people's interests, needs and longer-term aims.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture, with clear management roles and regular audits. Improvements had been made since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Cedars Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with medicines management improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 7 January 2019. The visit was announced. They spoke with two people, five staff members, two relatives and two health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, audits, meeting notes and maintenance records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely, staffing was suitable, care plans were up to date and staff supported people to make choices and build independence.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in December 2017 because of problems with medicines and medicines audits. Inspectors found these improvements had been made and that management oversight was now robust.
Respectful relationships
People felt at home and comfortable with staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, patience and humour.
“People who used the service were clear that staff were patient and respectful with them.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in household tasks, use public transport, attend college and pursue personal goals.
“Staff actively encouraged people to build and maintain their independence.” from the report
Individual activities
Activities were planned around people's likes, dislikes, interests and aspirations. People were supported to take part in the community.
“Activities provision was well planned and geared to each person's preferences.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are medicines audits completed, and how are any mistakes or changes in medicines followed up?
- 02How will the Positive Behaviour Support training and any new paperwork be managed without overburdening staff?
- 03How are staffing levels planned to provide the one-to-one support identified in people's rotas?
- 04How are people and their families involved when care plans, activities or personal goals are reviewed?
- 05How is the registered manager's time divided between this home and the provider's other nearby service?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors reviewed one person's care plans and records in detail. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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, January 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring, effective and responsive support, but medicines checks and management oversight were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 05 December 2017. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance because this is a small home where people are often out during the day. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and an external professional. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw respectful relationships, good healthcare support, activities chosen by individuals and encouragement to develop independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement. Medicines were not properly audited, and some records and instructions were incomplete. Management checks and staff supervision had also not happened as regularly as they should have.
The home was previously rated Good in October 2015. A new registered manager had been in post for less than a month. They had an action plan for improvements, but inspectors had not yet seen enough evidence that these changes were complete.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff supported people's dignity, choices and independence without taking over.
“People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner and staff were sensitive to people's varying levels of independence, ensuring they were supported with tasks but without taking over from people.” from the report
Staff understood people's needs
Staff knew people's communication needs, preferences and personal histories. Training covered both core safety subjects and the specific needs of people living at the home.
“Staff demonstrated an excellent knowledge of people's needs, preferences, life histories and relationships.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to take part in education, work, activities and community life. Staff supported people to make their own choices and develop everyday skills.
“People were supported to pursue areas of interest as independently as possible, including access to education and work.” from the report
Good risk planning
Risk assessments were personal to each person and aimed to keep people safe without unnecessarily restricting their freedom.
“Risk assessments were detailed and individualised to people's needs and preferences, helping staff to understand how best to help people avoid the risks they faced.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousMedicines were not sufficiently checked by management. Inspectors found problems with homely remedies, missing photographs on some medicines records and incomplete instructions for applying a cream.
“Medicines were not sufficiently audited and medicines administration practices were not always safe.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingAudits of medicines and care records were not effective enough to identify problems promptly. The new manager had an action plan, but improvements were still being put in place.
“Improvements in terms of quality assurance and scrutiny were required, particularly with regard to medicines and care files.” from the report
Staff supervision and meetings
needs fixingFormal supervision and team meetings had not taken place often enough during the previous year. The new manager planned to restart these arrangements.
“Team meetings and staff supervisions had not happened as often as they should have in the previous year.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines audits since this inspection?
- 02How do you now check homely remedies and make sure they are safe with prescribed medicines?
- 03Are topical medicines now supported by clear application instructions and body maps?
- 04How often do staff receive formal supervision and attend team meetings now?
- 05How have care records and management checks been streamlined and independently reviewed?
This was an announced inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home, including care, premises, medicines, staff records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2018 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 Cedars Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 2014.
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.