Cedar Court Care Home
Care home, Bexley, 47 beds
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
Cedar Court Care Home: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in October 2026, up from Inadequate.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Inspected and rated 4 times since 2016. Rated Requires improvement in 2016, then Good in 2018, then Inadequate in 2025, then Requires improvement in October 2026.
Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Requires improvement. The latest rating was published this month.
How it compares locally
- One of 6 Requires improvement care homes in Bexley, out of 26 with a rating.
- About the middle for size in Bexley.
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 7 October 2026 (assessment visit 27 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: Between 2 to 11 September 2026. The service is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for older people and people living with dementia. The service can support a maximum of 47 people. There were 30 people living in the service at the time of inspection.
This inspection was prompted in part by concerns received by CQC about staff discontent, staffing levels and the potential impact on people’s care. We found there were issues around staff concerns but this had not impacted on people’s care and safety. At our last assessment, the service was rated requires improvement (published 30 January 2026) and we found the provider was in breach of 3 regulations. These related to safe care and treatment, dignity and respect and good governance.
At this assessment, we found some improvements had been made. The provider was now providing safer care and people’s dignity and respect were better maintained. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and could anticipate their needs. Some care records were well written and gave a good indication of the needs of people. People were safeguarded by staff who knew their responsibilities in keeping people safe and the provider alerted the local authority and CQC when a safeguarding issue was identified. People were referred to the appropriate heath care professionals when they needed treatment or advice.
However, further improvements were still necessary to ensure a safe and good quality service.
The provider was not registered to provide accommodation and personal care services to people with a learning disability. However, people with a learning disability were living at the service. We therefore assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider’s care and support of people with a learning disability did not meet the principles of this guidance. We have reported on this through the quality statements in this report.
People’s care records were not always accurate or consistent in the information recorded leading to the potential for unsafe care, although we did not find any impact on people. Management and leadership was weak. Communication was poor and lacked openness with staff, resulting in discontent amongst staff with the potential to impact on people’s care. Staff culture was poor, the staff team did not always work well together leading to further potential impact on people’s care. The provider took steps following the assessment to start to tackle the issues and increased staffing levels to ensure people’s safety. The monitoring and oversight of the service was not robust and therefore ineffective which meant opportunities were missed to make timely improvements. Processes to evidence compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005,good care planning and risk management were inconsistent and this had not been identified.
There continued to be a breach of regulation in relation to accurate record keeping to ensure safe care and treatment and effective management, leadership and governance systems. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to accurate record keeping to ensure safe care and treatment.
-
Effective
No rating
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. -
Caring
No rating
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. -
Responsive
No rating
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. -
Well-led
No rating
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to management, leadership and governance at the service.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 7 October 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Effective was rated Requires improvement on 7 October 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
- Caring was rated Requires improvement on 7 October 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 7 October 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 7 October 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
Contact and registration details
| Address | 138 Lensbury Way, London, SE2 9TA |
|---|---|
| Phone | 020 8311 1163 |
| Registered manager | Jeanette Ponton |
| Registered with the CQC since | |
| What it provides |
|
| Who it supports |
|
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
| Provider | MKR Healthcare Ltd |
|---|---|
| Ownership type | Organisation |
| Companies House number | 14817233 (opens Companies House) |
Nearest alternatives
- G Weybourne Care home, 0.5 miles awayGood
- G Emmanuel Care Services Limited Care home, 0.6 miles awayGood
- G Brook House Care Centre Care home with nursing, 1.1 miles awayGood
- G Marlborough Court Care Home Care home with nursing, 1.1 miles awayGood
- G 167 Lodge Hill Care home, 1.2 miles awayGood
Getting help from London Borough of Bexley
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at London Borough of Bexley
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 020 8303 7777, Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: London Borough of Bexley
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Cedar Court Care Home provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists Cedar Court Care Home as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does Cedar Court Care Home have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 47 beds at Cedar Court Care Home.
- When was Cedar Court Care Home last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Cedar Court Care Home was published on 7 October 2026.
- Who runs Cedar Court Care Home?
- Cedar Court Care Home is run by MKR Healthcare Ltd.
- What is Cedar Court Care Home's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 7 October 2026.