Archived: The Cedars

Updated 20 April 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 26 November 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Before we visited we reviewed the information we held about the home. The operations manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our visit we spoke with five people living at home, four care staff, the operations manager and the registered manager. We observed care and support in shared areas. We reviewed some parts of the care plans for four people, the staff training and induction records for staff, five people’s medicine records and the quality assurance audits that the registered manager completed

We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot fully express their views by talking with us.

Updated 20 April 2015

This inspection took place on 26 November 2014 and was unannounced. When we last inspected the service in October 2013, the provider was meeting all expectations.

The Cedars provides accommodation and care for up to seven young adults with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. There were six people living there when we visited.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and the staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. Although there was a system to assess risks to safety had most had been assessed, some action was still needed to ensure all people were protected from all risks to their safety and took all their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received regular training and knew how to manage people’s individual needs. Any important changes in people’s needs were passed on to all staff when they started their shifts, so that they all knew the up to date information.

The staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applications for DoLS had been made appropriately. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and, where people lacked mental capacity, we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.

Staff were kind and helped people to keep in contact with their families. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.

People’s individual needs had been assessed and full clear plans were specific to people as individuals. Staff were knowledgeable about how to respond to people’s individual likes and interests. Staff assisted people to take part in appropriate daily activities and holidays.

Overall, the service was well-led and plans were in place to continuously develop the service.