Cedar House

Updated 26 November 2024

Date of Assessment: 16 December 2024 to 28 Jan 2025.

The service is a residential care home providing support to adults with a learning disability or autistic people living with high needs including physical disabilities. We visited because we received concerns about people receiving safe care. We assessed against CQC’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found 4 breaches of regulations relating to providing safe care and medicines management, the home environment, person-centred care and governance. We found concerns about the safe management of the risks from choking for some people. We raised these as an urgent matter and the provider responded promptly to keep those people safe. There were not sufficient plans in place to support staff to manage risks effectively. Medicines support was not always managed in line with the provider’s procedures. Staff did not always treat all people with dignity or empathy. Some areas of the home needed cleaning, repair and redecoration. The provider’s own governance systems had not identified and addressed the concerns found at this assessment. There were safeguarding arrangements in place. Staff knew people’s preferences and how they communicated and people experienced continuity of care. Staff worked with agencies involved in people’s care and supported smooth transitions when moving services. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Managers were visible in the service and promoted staff wellbeing. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 26 November 2024

The people who lived here and their relatives were positive about the quality of care and felt people were safe. A person said they liked living at the home. We spent time with people and when they couldn’t tell us about their care themselves, we spoke with relatives and professionals about their care and we checked what we saw with records at the service. Relatives said, “I’m happy [their family member]’s there” and described the staff team as “all very kind and caring.” However, we also saw occasions when people were not always treated with dignity and respect. People and their relatives personalised their bedrooms, but other people’s rooms were very sparsely decorated as staff had not supported them to do this and there was no indication people had chosen to have their rooms like that. Staff supported people with some things they enjoyed but at times we saw people did not always spend fun and interesting times with staff. People’s planned care didn’t set out how to support them to try new things or be actively involved in their day to day care.