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 were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, April 2021
The Cedars was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 March 2021. It checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found individual COVID-19 risk assessments, safe visiting arrangements and regular contact with families through video calls. Visitors had checks including questionnaires, protective equipment, hand washing, temperature checks and lateral flow tests.
The home had infection control policies, cleaning schedules, protective equipment and regular testing. People were supported to understand changes caused by the pandemic, and vaccination consent and best-interest decisions were recorded.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was inspected but not rated. The report does not give ratings for the other four questions.
Safe visiting
The home had a process to support safe visits and explained protective equipment requirements to people and relatives.
“There was a visiting process in place to support people and relatives to conduct safe visits as and when required.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in regular contact with their families through video calls and understood when calls would work best.
“There had been regular contact with families using video calls throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found detailed infection control guidance, regular testing, enough protective equipment and audited cleaning schedules.
“The provider had robust cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Vaccination decisions
The home supported people to receive their first vaccination dose and recorded consent or best-interest decisions where needed.
“Consent had been obtained from people and where people had been unable to consent, best interest decisions were recorded” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are currently in place?
- 02How do you currently support safe visits from relatives?
- 03How often are people and staff tested, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 04How are cleaning schedules checked and updated?
- 05What current ratings or information can you provide about effective, caring, responsive and well-led care, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 2021 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, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 July 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff and relatives. They checked care records, staff files, medicines, risk assessments, accidents, meetings and quality checks.
The home supported 14 adults with learning and complex physical disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, effective risk assessments and good infection control. Staff were trained and worked well with health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported to make choices, stay independent, communicate in ways that suited them, and take part in activities and trips. The home was also found to be well managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection had also rated the service Good, so all ratings remained the same.
Staff knew people well
People were supported by consistent staff who understood their needs and communication styles. This helped staff build trusting relationships.
“Staff knew people extremely well. They cared for the same people and had been given the time needed to build positive relationships with people and their families.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make decisions about their daily lives and to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and checks to make sure medicines were given safely. Staff had extra training for medicines needed by particular people.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were fully completed and provided staff with descriptions of the medicines people were taking.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People could choose from activities at the onsite day centre, activities in the home and trips out. Support was arranged to help people maintain family and community links.
“People had access to a variety of activities of their choice.” from the report
Good health support
People had access to health services and onsite physiotherapy. Staff worked with professionals to support people's health and mobility.
“People had access to health services including GPs, dentist, opticians and speech and language therapists.” from the report
Future suitability of the building
minorThe manager recognised that the building may need changes as people get older, so families may want to ask what improvements are planned.
“The registered manager recognised the building will need to change as the people get older to ensure it remains suitable and accessible for them.” from the report
End of life planning
minorAt the inspection, end of life plans were being updated and new plans were intended for everyone. Families should ask how this work has progressed.
“However, all care plans were being updated to support people if this occurred.” from the report
- 01What changes are planned to keep the building suitable and accessible as people get older?
- 02Has an end of life plan now been completed for every person, and how are families involved?
- 03How do you monitor medicines after the previous reduction in medicine errors?
- 04How would you support my relative to communicate choices if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 05How much individual support is available for activities, trips, healthcare appointments and family visits?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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.
Every inspection of The Cedars
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 June 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.