The Cedars Care Home

This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Leaders promoted a positive culture that placed people at the centre of their care. Staff understood the values of the service and demonstrated a commitment to providing compassionate care. One person told us, “I feel that I am part of them, and feel that I fit in. It is a lovely place.”

Care was centred around supporting people to live independently whilst maintaining their safety. Leaders were committed to learning from incidents, feedback and people’s experiences to improve the care provided. Staff were also encouraged to reflect on their work and contribute to improvements.

Care plans reflected people’s individual histories and preferences. We found that records contained personalised guidance outlining different approaches for staff to take, depending on how the person presented and their individual needs at the time. Risks were also consistently identified and documented across all areas of people’s care plans.

Leaders monitored outcomes for people to ensure care continued to meet their needs and support was delivered in accordance with current best practice and guidance. This enabled leaders to identify trends, emerging risks and areas requiring innovation, including weight loss, skin integrity, oral care and incidents. Information was reviewed regularly by management and staff to take timely action where concerns were identified. Daily oversight meetings provided opportunities to review these risks, identify barriers and improve engagement. They worked closely with healthcare professionals when there were changes to people’s health.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and were able to describe how they would recognise and report concerns. One relative told us, “There is a low staff turnover which speaks volumes about the employer and allows them to develop relationships with residents who have been here a long time.”

We found that staffing levels were generally sufficient to meet people’s needs, including administering medicines safely. Systems were in place for storing and administering medicines. Leaders worked with healthcare professionals to ensure medicines were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs.

Governance systems provided effective oversight of quality, safety and performance within the home. The registered manager completed audits and monitoring to identify risks to people using the service. One person told us, “I have never been in a place so meticulously managed. “The environment was maintained in a way that promoted people’s safety. Equipment and facilities were regularly checked to ensure they remained safe. Leaders had considered how to create a dementia-friendly environment that supported people’s orientation, independence and mobility. When accidents occurred, the registered manager completed investigations. For example, following an accident, records showed the person was provided with additional aids, such as floor sensor mats to prevent recurrence.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found that staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.

People had choice, control and freedom over their lives. When concerns arose, the provider worked with safeguarding teams and other relevant professionals to ensure people were protected from harm.