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 that risks were assessed and staff understood how to reduce harm. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were all described as safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, a manager in post and good links with health professionals and the local community. People, relatives and staff said managers were accessible and welcomed feedback.
What inspectors found, February 2023
The Cedars is Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management systems after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 30 January 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, quality checks and staff recruitment records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received medicines safely, risks were assessed, staffing levels were suitable, recruitment checks were completed and infection control procedures were followed.
Inspectors also found better systems for checking care, medicines and the building. People and relatives said managers were approachable and that their views were listened to.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published on 9 June 2022. The report says improvements had been made, so the overall rating changed to Good. However, this inspection only directly reviewed Safe and Well-led.
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent before giving medicines. The home had procedures for responding to medicine errors and guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and when directed.” from the report
Risk management
Care risks such as mobility, skin health, diet and nutrition had been assessed. Staff knew how to reduce the risks of avoidable harm.
“Staff members knew the risks associated with people's care and support and knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found that staff were available promptly when people needed support. Recruitment included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.
“People were supported by enough staff.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had improved checks on care plans, medicines, stock levels and the physical environment. Issues found through checks were acted on.
“The provider had made improvements to their quality monitoring systems and now had effective systems in place.” from the report
Open communication
People and relatives said they could raise concerns or suggestions with staff and managers. The home arranged meetings and regularly asked for feedback.
“People and relatives felt assured their views would be valued and acted on.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including mobility, skin health, diet or nutrition?
- 02How will you make sure my relative receives all prescribed medicines safely, including any medicines given when needed?
- 03What staffing levels will be in place at the times my relative needs the most help?
- 04What were the improvements made after the Requires Improvement rating in June 2022, and how are you checking that they continue?
- 05How can our family give feedback or raise a concern, and how will you tell us what action has been taken?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2023 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines safety and management checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 March 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and professionals, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines information and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly, had enough trained staff, received support with food and healthcare, and could take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Medicines records were not always completed correctly. Records did not always show what had been done after accidents and incidents, and management checks had missed some problems.
The report says the home was already making changes, including weekly medicines audits and an action plan for better quality checks. CQC will continue to monitor the information it receives and check whether improvements have lasted.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff offering choices, protecting privacy and supporting people in a patient and caring way.
“Staff supported people in a kind and caring way in line with their preferences.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The report says there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had recruitment checks, induction and training.
“People were supported by sufficient staff, in a flexible way in line with their preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in group and one-to-one activities and were supported to maintain important relationships.
“People had access to a range of group and personalised activities.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could access healthcare professionals when needed. The home also had a weekly GP ward round to discuss health concerns.
“People had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them and in a timely way.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing infection risks and following the COVID-19 requirements checked during the inspection.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousStaff did not always have clear guidance for medicines prescribed 'as required'. Some records were not signed to show medicines had been given. The management team had started weekly audits and said errors had reduced.
“People's medicines records did not always reflect the support they required with medicines administration.” from the report
Learning from incidents
seriousAccidents and incidents were reviewed, but records did not always show what action had been taken to reduce future risks.
“Not all actions taken by the management team had been recorded to reflect action had been taken to reduce future risks.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingQuality checks had not found some problems with medicines, care records and enhanced cleaning schedules. The home was working on improving its monitoring systems.
“Quality assurance tools had not always identified the concerns we found at this inspection.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome care records did not fully match the care people were receiving. Reviews had not always identified this.
“People's care records did not always reflect the care people were receiving and reviews on care plans had not identified this.” from the report
End of life preferences
needs fixingEnd of life care plans were in place, but more work was needed to record people's preferences fully.
“Further work needed to be completed to ensure these fully explored people's preferences.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records, and how are weekly medicines audits now followed up?
- 02How do you record and review actions after accidents and incidents?
- 03How do you check that each person's care plan matches the care they are receiving?
- 04How are people's end of life preferences recorded and reviewed?
- 05How will people and relatives know who is in the management team and who to speak to about concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about medicines, governance and leadership; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service and covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2022 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
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.