Cedar Lodge

We rated this service under our previous methodology in July 2018 where it was inspected and rated as good overall. This inspection was undertaken as an aged rating, and we reviewed all 5 key questions.

There was a positive culture at Cedar Lodge, primarily led by a registered manager who respected people, relatives and the staff team as individuals. There was a strong management team who were very motivated to promote and continually improve care, respecting people’s individuality and protected characteristics. This approach helped people to be able to share any personal information with confidence that they would be treated as they would want to be. Staff were valued; they were encouraged to speak up and give feedback so things could be improved. Managers were proactive in developing relationships with others to ensure positive outcomes for people. This included partnerships with people, relatives, external healthcare professionals and within the local community.

People were supported by enough staff who kept them safe and protected from poor practice. Safe recruitment checks made sure staff were suitable and safe to care for people. The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the home to make sure they could meet their needs safely. The provider’s systems held information that was regularly reviewed, relating to risks to people’s health, their medication and wishes for future care. Where necessary, this information was shared with other healthcare professionals. The home environment was maintained and clean. Housekeeping staff kept the home clean, and staff followed safe infection control practices, wearing personal protective clothing at the right times.

People received their medicines from trained staff and we were confident people received their medicines. However, in some cases, we were not confident they were administered safely, for example, pain patch medicines. Before we concluded our visit, the provider took steps to improve the safety application of medicines given via a skin patch. Staff supported people to engage in activities and to pursue their hobbies and interests, however we found there was opportunity for these to be improved, for example, using the providers own transport.

People’s mental capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and people and their representatives were involved in how their care and support was tailored to them. Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) applications were appropriately submitted. We found staff’s knowledge could be improved and records in how those decisions were reached, be better documented. The area manager told us this was an action for improvement they had identified.

The provider had systems of quality assurance that helped them check, monitor and improve the service they provided which included listening to people’s feedback. Oversight of the provider through internal checks and internal quality teams, verified improvements had been made. There was a programme of audits and checks that were completed at set intervals; however, some of those checks had not identified the improvements we found were needed, for example with medicines and accuracy of some records. Some of the provider’s audits only checked a small sample and following our visit, the area manager and clinical assessor recognised areas for improvement to their audit process. This demonstrated an approach and attitude to learning lessons which formed part of a positive culture to deliver care to the best standards possible.