Cedar Lodge Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People overall received safe care and treatment from staff who understood their individual needs and followed people’s care plans. Staff knew how to safely support people around a range of their individual risks and how to protect them from abuse and neglect. The provider had good systems and processes in place for reporting and acting on safeguarding concerns, assessing and reviewing people’s needs, staff training and recruitment. There were enough competent staff to provide timely support to people. People were provided with safe care protecting them from avoidable harm during the assessment site visit.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff were aware of how to keep people safe and understood their responsibility to report any concerns. Staff gave examples of situations where they would report concerns, for example, if they noticed a person had unexplained bruises. Staff told us how they would report any concerns, “We have the training for safeguarding. If I see something report to the nurse straight away, then to head of care and then to the registered manager. They will investigate and also report to the local authority” and “We do incident report, then this gets passed to the manager, if needed police to intervene we would call them and report to police or report to the local authority. [The registered manager] takes responsibility for the safeguarding investigation.”

People told us they felt safe in the home and with staff.

Staff treated people in a kind and respectful way and provided safe support when needed.

The provider had policies in place for safeguarding people and whistleblowing. The registered manager recorded and reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority. The governance records they maintained around incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were not always clear what actions were taken to protect people which we addressed in the governance quality statement in this assessment. However, staff knew what they needed to do to protect people when required.

People had individual care plans in place which clearly identified people’s individual risks and included guidance for staff on how to support people. Staff included recommendations made by GP or speech and language therapy service in people’s care plans, for example, diagnostic tests were booked as required and recommendations around food and drink were implemented. The provider had clear systems and processes in place to ensure risks to people were identified, regularly reviewed and action was taken to support people to remain safe and well.

Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and how to support them safely. Staff were able to describe individual people’s needs and risks and how they supported them to stay well and safe. Staff comments around risk management included, “We report immediately if a resident falls and nurses will then assess. Nurses update the risk assessment immediately when risks are increased. Carers are very good at alerting [nurses] to concerns.”, “We respect people’s wish to walk and support this by walking with them. We do not restrict their wish to walk so we encourage and support them. We must respect their choices.” and “Whenever I see a risk and add it to the care plan, I complete assessment and share with the whole team so everyone is aware.”

People and their relatives told us their care met their needs and protected them from avoidable harm. People told us, “There’s all kinds of things the staff help me with. There are buttons (call bells) to push all over the place.”, “[Staff] keep an eye (on risks). I’m (using specific care equipment) and they know and can help me.” People’s relatives commented, “They are aware of all his needs.” and “I’m happy with [the care]. [Staff] sorted out the issue [around specific health concerns]. It was all sorted within a couple of days.”

People who required support to eat, drink or walk safely, were supported by staff and had access to appropriate care equipment and adaptations, for example, to have modified meals or drinks to reduce the risk of choking. Staff supported people to change position to prevent skin breakdown. We saw care was provided in line with what staff told us were people’s needs and what was included in people’s individual care plans.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were receiving safe care during the site visit, there were numerous staff available around the home and staff did not appear hurried as they were supporting people. People’s call bells were answered timely.

Staff told us there were enough of them and they received appropriate training and support to comfortably fulfil their roles. Staff members said, “We all communicate very well. There is good teamwork, if someone needs help, we help each other. We look after each other and there is plenty of staff. Weekend staffing is the same. We have time to sit and chat with people.”, “We are very well staffed; this is generous and when we have fewer residents we have the same levels. At less busy times we have time to sit and speak to people and their families.”, “We have training almost every month; it’s very good.” and "We have team meeting every 3 months or if there is an emergency, and I have supervision regularly.”

The provider ensured staffing levels were appropriate and maintained, so people’s needs were consistently met. The management team acted to adjust staffing in case of any unforeseen changes in the rosters, for example, around staff sickness. New staff were recruited safely, and all appropriate checks were completed. Staff training programme was robust and relevant to the type of the care and support staff provided to people in the home. Staff completed regular training and the provider had good systems in place to support them in their roles.

People and their relatives told us overall there were enough competent staff available to people to provide timely care and support. People said, “I’ve never been in a position where I’ve needed help and couldn’t get it.”, “I ring the bell and they are always around.” and “[Staff] know what they’re doing and know what we need.” A relative told us, “Yes, I can see that there are [enough staff], as I stayed all day yesterday and they check on [person] every half an hour.” People told us the registered manager was present and available in the home, should they need to speak with them. People said, “The manager is friendly and approachable.”, “[The home] is very well run. Looking around, I know that my life would be very different if it wasn’t for this place, we rely on [staff]. [The registered manager] is very nice, she’s in and out, pops around all the time. We also have [staff member] you can always ask anything of.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.