CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough suitably skilled staff. Recruitment checks and learning from accidents and incidents were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff had suitable training and support. People received help with healthcare, food and drink, and decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring and respected people's privacy, dignity, independence and lifestyle choices. People and relatives were given opportunities to share their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and kept up to date when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, supportive management and good teamwork. Quality and safety checks were carried out, and the home worked with families and health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
The CQC carried out an unannounced inspection on 10 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a family member and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable, and people received support with health, food and drink.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. The home had an open culture, responded to complaints and used checks to monitor quality and safety.
This was a planned inspection to check that the previous Good rating had been maintained. The previous inspection rating, published in June 2017, was also Good.
Safe care and medicines
Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and managed. Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely and records showed people received them when needed.
“Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and well managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. They supported people's privacy, independence and preferred choices.
“Staff treated people well and respected their equality and diversity.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, choices and preferences. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were kept under review and updated when there was a change in people's needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or wishes change?
- 02How will you support my relative with their medicines, including regular checks that medicines are given as prescribed?
- 03What activities and contact with family and friends will be available for my relative?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs and involvement in decisions about their care?
- 05How will you work with health professionals if my relative's health changes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, to check that the previous Good rating had been maintained. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements needed around dementia support, food choices and complaint records.
Inspectors visited without warning on 11 and 18 April 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care, recruitment and management records, and observed the home.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had staff who treated them kindly and respectfully.
There were some areas for improvement. The home was not always dementia-friendly, therapy dolls were not properly risk assessed or stored, alternative meals were not always offered, and two complaints were missing from the complaints record. The home was last inspected in April 2015 and was also rated Good.
Safe care
Inspectors found that staff understood abuse reporting, recruitment checks were robust and medicines were administered safely.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were patient and caring. They maintained people's privacy and dignity and made relatives feel welcome.
“Staff were kind and caring in their approach to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, life histories and clear instructions about the support they needed.
“Care records were personalised throughout and contained details around people's preferences.” from the report
Activities and family feedback
People could take part in activities such as bingo, crafts and church services. Feedback from the annual survey was positive, and suggestions were acted on.
“An annual survey was carried out by the registered provider to establish the views of people using the service, their families, and external professionals.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThe environment had little decoration or signage to help people find their way and recognise rooms. Inspectors recommended seeking advice on practical dementia support.
“During our inspection we found that the environment was not always dementia friendly.” from the report
Therapy dolls
needs fixingTherapy dolls did not have risk assessments or care plans. Some were left in plastic bags where people could see them, which could cause distress.
“However risk assessments and care plans were not in place around their use.” from the report
Incomplete complaint records
needs fixingTwo concerns raised with the local authority were missing from the home's complaints record. This meant the home could not reliably look for repeated problems or trends.
“An accurate record of complaints was not kept in line with the registered provider's own complaints policy.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the environment to improve signage, decoration, room recognition and wayfinding for people living with dementia?
- 02How are therapy dolls risk assessed, included in care plans and stored when they are not being used?
- 03How do staff offer alternative meals or desserts when someone does not like what is served?
- 04How do you now record complaints and concerns raised directly with the home or through the local authority?
- 05Have all staff completed the outstanding Mental Capacity Act and other role-related training?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five rating areas and reviewing care, staffing, premises and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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 Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home →
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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 St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.