CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cedars (Mansfield)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, correct medicine records and suitable health and safety checks. Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and staff received the training and support they needed. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said care was good. Inspectors saw positive relationships, and staff treated people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individual and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, relatives and access to the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as friendly and well managed. Regular feedback and quality checks were used to identify and follow up improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
The Cedars (Mansfield) was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 August 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, five staff members and two relatives by telephone. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supported seven people with a learning disability or autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, medicines given as prescribed and good action after accidents. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, communication and daily choices.
Inspectors saw patient and kind care. People had detailed, personalised care plans and were supported to take part in activities, use local services and maintain relationships. The home was described as well managed, with effective checks to improve care.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 17 March 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and treated them with patience, kindness, dignity and respect.
“Positive and nurturing relationships between people and staff were evident; people were comfortable around the staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
People had detailed care plans based on their needs, preferences and wishes. Staff also used individual communication profiles.
“People had individualised care plans covering all aspects of their care needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used regular checks, feedback and follow-up actions to monitor care and improve the service.
“The provider continued to operate a structured approach to quality assurance.” from the report
Building size
minorThe property was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of home. Inspectors said this was reduced by the building fitting into the residential area.
“Although this is larger than current best practice guidance, this was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area.” from the report
- 01How do you currently make sure there are enough staff to give each person personalised support?
- 02How are medicines checked and recorded, and what happens if there is a medicines error?
- 03How do you support each person to communicate, make daily choices and take part in activities?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How is the sensory cabin used to support people's individual sensory needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but care records did not clearly link people’s needs, goals and progress.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 February 2017. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven people with learning disabilities and autism. Seven people were living there at the time.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and people were supported with food, healthcare, choices, activities and independence.
Staff were described as kind and knowledgeable about people’s needs. However, inspectors found that care records did not clearly show how information was linked and used to monitor people’s needs, goals and aspirations. Some information about people’s mental health needs was also limited.
The overall rating was Good, with a Good rating in each of the five areas inspected. The registered manager was in post, although not available on the inspection day.
Safety and staffing
Risks were assessed and monitored. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs, with staffing adjusted when needs changed.
“There were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs and safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with warmth, dignity, choice and independence.
“People were cared for by staff who showed kindness and compassion in the way they supported them.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People received support with eating, drinking and healthcare. Staff knew people’s dietary needs and responded to changes in health.
“People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently and received a balanced diet based on their nutritional needs and preferences.” from the report
Care records were not joined up
needs fixingThere were several types of care records, but it was not clear how they worked together to monitor people’s needs, goals and aspirations. Support plans were not reviewed often enough.
“We also found that support plans were not frequently reviewed and daily records, keyworker meetings and annual reviews did not easily link together to show what people's goals and aspirations were and how these were achieved.” from the report
Limited mental health information
needs fixingFor some people, staff had limited information about what their mental health conditions meant for them. Staff also said more specific training would help.
“We found examples where people had specific needs associated with their mental health but information available for staff about what this meant for the person was limited.” from the report
Activity shed unavailable in winter
minorA shed had been developed as a workshop for one person’s interests, but it had no heating and could not be used during winter. Improvement discussions were under way.
“The shed was found to have no heating and was therefore unable to be used during the winter period.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the way care records link together and show each person’s goals, aspirations and progress?
- 02How often are support plans now reviewed, and who checks that reviews lead to changes in care?
- 03What extra information and training do staff have about each person’s mental health needs?
- 04Has heating been added to the activity shed so it can be used throughout the year?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care and deciding on activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; inspectors used observations because people’s complex needs limited direct communication with them. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 The Cedars (Mansfield)
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2015.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.