CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cedars
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, manage risks, maintain the environment and provide safe medicines. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, trained staff and access to healthcare professionals. Staff supported people with food, health, independence and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were given choices, supported to communicate and helped to maintain relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People were supported with activities, community visits and family contact, but end-of-life preferences were not clearly recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an approachable management team, clear staff roles and regular quality checks. Surveys, meetings and work with other organisations were used to support improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes not clearly recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 June 2019. One inspector spoke with three people using the service, six staff members and a visiting professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had suitable staffing and trained staff.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans described their needs, communication and preferences, and they were supported with activities, family contact, healthcare and greater independence. The home was asked to improve how it explored and recorded people's choices about end-of-life care.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff showing kindness and empathy. Staff knew people well and respected their dignity, privacy and communication needs.
“Staff took time to interact with people and to look for facial expressions or hand gestures as a means of communicating” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, choices and preferred ways to communicate. Staff regularly reviewed support and adapted it when needs changed.
“Care plans were person centred, considering people's personal choice and preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about food, activities and daily life. The home also helped people develop skills and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines and care
Staff were trained to manage medicines, records showed when medicines were given, and audits were used to identify and address minor actions.
“People continued to receive their medicines safely. Staff had received training on how to manage and administer medicines.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingThe home had not clearly recorded people's preferences and choices about end-of-life care. Inspectors recommended that the provider review how it explores and records these wishes.
“However, this was not clearly documented in people's care plans.” from the report
- 01How do you now explore and record a person's preferences and choices about end-of-life care?
- 02How would you support my relative to communicate their wishes if they find end-of-life discussions difficult?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan is updated when their needs, preferences or health change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, including one-to-one support?
- 05How would you support my relative to make their own decisions while keeping them safe?
This was a planned but unannounced inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions; all previous ratings from 21 October 2016 remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas they checked.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days, on 1 July and 4 July 2016. One inspector spoke with five people, the manager, the provider and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported up to 13 people with mental health needs and did not provide nursing care. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines systems and care that met people's assessed needs. They found that people's health, food, drink and social needs were supported.
People were described as treated with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and encouraged activities and community access. The manager and provider were actively involved, and systems were in place to listen to feedback and improve the service.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report records no breaches or enforcement action.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and understood how to respond when someone became distressed.
“We saw that staff were polite and respectful when they spoke with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's backgrounds, preferences and interests. People were supported to take part in activities and access the community.
“There is clear evidence of person centred planning within the care plan.” from the report
Good management
The manager and provider were actively involved. Staff morale was good and quality checks were used to respond to people's feedback.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, to obtain people's views and to use their feedback to make improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you assess whether you can meet a new resident's mental health needs and whether they will be compatible with people already living here?
- 02What staffing levels are in place now, and how do you add staff when someone has complex needs?
- 03How are medicines administered, checked and recorded for my relative?
- 04How would you support my relative with eating, swallowing or other health needs, including advice from health professionals?
- 05What activities and community trips would be available for my relative, based on their interests and mobility?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, with ratings given for all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 2016 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 The Cedars
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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 20 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.