We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cedric House EMI Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Cedric House is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people living with dementia. 20 people were living at the service at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and well managed. The recruitment of staff was safe and there was the right amount of suitable staff on duty to safely meet people’s needs. Medicines were safely managed. Learning took place following accidents and incidents.
An assessment of people’s needs, and choices was completed. Staff received the training and support they needed for their role. People received the support they needed to maintain good health and a balanced diet. People accessed healthcare services when needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff treated people well and respected their privacy, dignity and independence. Staff interacted well with people and were caring and attentive towards them.
People received care and support which was personalised and responsive to their needs. Care plans were kept up to date to reflect any changes in people’s needs and wishes. People and family members knew how to complain, and they were confident about complaining if they needed to. Complaints were used to improve the service.
The management promoted a person-centred service. There was an open and positive culture and good partnership working with others. The quality and safety of the service was monitored through regular checks.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 09 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection to check that the service remained Good.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Cedric House is registered to provide accommodation to people living with dementia who require personal care and support. The service is registered to accommodate up to 20 people. At the time of the inspection visit there were 18 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post within the service, who had been registered with the CQC since March 2015. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The registered provider specialises in supporting people living with dementia, however we found some aspects of the service that would benefit from some improvement. For example the environment would benefit from consideration around how it could be made more dementia friendly, and the use of therapy dolls needs to be carried out in line with best practice. We have made a recommendation to the registered provider around supporting people who live with dementia.
Audit systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided. However an accurate record of complaints was not being maintained by the registered manager. This meant that common themes or trends in complaints could not be identified to prevent issues from reoccurring again in the future. Other aspects of the service that were audited to a good standard included medication and the management of falls.
During meal times the majority of people enjoyed the food presented, whereas some people did not appear to enjoy what had been offered. Alternative options were not always made available. However, people received special diets where needed and appropriate action was taken to refer people to the relevant health professionals where they were at risk of weight-loss. This helped to protect people from the risk of malnutrition. We raised this with the registered manager so that this could be addressed with staff.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the different signs of abuse and how to report any concerns they may have. The registered provider had a whistleblowing policy and procedure in place which staff were familiar with. This enabled staff to report concerns inside or outside the service without fear of reprisals.
Accidents and incidents were being monitored by the registered manager, and appropriate action was being taken in response to these. Where people were at high risk of falls and had experienced multiple falls they had been referred to the appropriate health professional for support.
Recruitment processes were robust and ensured that staff employed were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. Appropriate checks had been carried out prior to new staff starting which helped the registered manager make decisions regarding the suitability of applicants.
People had been supported to take their medication as prescribed. Medication was administered safely, and staff signed medication administration charts (MARs) to show that this had been given as required. Clear instructions were available for staff around when medicines should be administered.
People’s rights and liberties were being protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We observed positive examples where staff gave people the option of making choices for themselves. The registered manager was aware of those family members who had the legal power to make decisions on people’s behalf, and people’s care records reflected their cognitive and mental abilities.
Staff were kind and caring towards people and positive relationships had developed between them. Family members commented positively on staff and told us that they were made to feel welcome when they visited the service. Staff acted appropriately to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.
People each had an individual care record which outlined what staff needed to do to support them. These were personalised and contained information regarding their likes, dislikes and personal preferences. This helped ensure staff knew what support to provide to people.
There were activities available for people such as bingo, entertainment and arts and crafts. The local church visited the service on a Sunday so that people had the option of participating in a service and taking communion if they wished to do so.
An annual survey was carried out by the registered provider to establish the views of people using the service, their families, and external professionals. The feedback given had been positive. Where suggestions had been made to help improve the service the registered manager had acted upon these.
We carried out our unannounced inspection of Cedric House on 24 November 2014.
Cedric House is a residential home, which specialises in providing care and support to people who have a diagnosis of dementia. The home is situated in a quiet residential area of Rainhill, with easy access to public transport and close to local amenities. The service is registered to provide a service to 20 people. On the day of our inspection there were 19 people living in the home.
The service had a registered manager in post, however the registered manager had been absent for over two months and the owner had managed the service during the registered manager’s absence. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We spoke with four members of staff and the provider about their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found they had a good understanding and had acted in a lawful manner. We found that people, where possible were involved in decisions about their care and support. We saw staff positively interacting with people. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people who were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s care records contained information regarding DoLS and how it related to individuals.
We found that care plans were regularly reviewed, with people’s social history backgrounds and people’s personal preferences clearly identified. There was documented evidence in place which showed that people’s health care needs had been met, with records showing that input from health professionals had been accessed when needed. We saw that people’s assessed dietary needs had been met.
We found the service had quality monitoring systems in place, which gave people who lived in the home, their relatives and staff the opportunity to voice their views and opinions of the service.
There was a complaints system in place and relatives we spoke with told us, they were aware of the complaints system and knew how to complain, if they needed to.
We found that the service had a robust recruitment process in place, with evidence of appropriate police checks and references being obtained.
We saw that some redecoration and refurbishment to the home had taken place, with the first floor in the process of being decorated and re-carpeted.
Staff records showed that all appropriate checks were made prior to anyone starting work at the home which ensured all people using services were kept safe. All staff had the skills and knowledge required to provide good quality care to all people at the care home. There was an effective complaints system available which meant any comments or complaints people made were responded to appropriately and if required, they would be assisted in the process.
We observed staff delivering care in a warm and sensitive way, taking the time to speak and listen to people who used the service. We looked at care plans for five people and saw that they included appropriate information around health and support needs. The care plans were person centred and individualised, including records of people's likes and dislikes.
We spoke with a visitor to the home. They told us 'You couldn't ask for kinder care.' The visitor also told us that the communication was excellent and that the home would always inform them if any issues occurred.
Staff had appropriate policy and procedure guidance in place. We saw that there were good standards of hygiene and cleanliness and that infection control measures were in place.
We observed people being cared for by staff who were appropriately trained and qualified for their employment. We saw that staff meetings were held regularly and training was ongoing.
We saw evidence of regular audits and that the home sought customer feedback in order to inform continual improvement. There was a complaints procedure in place and complaints were followed up appropriately.
Throughout our inspection visit we observed the care staff supporting people in a sensitive, dignified and pleasant manner. We saw members of staff spending time with people and positively interacting with them.
We observed people being moved from one area to another. One person used a zimmer frame and the member of staff was encouraging and assisting the person in a respectful and unhurried way. Another person was observed being lifted by a hoist from a chair to a wheelchair, this again was carried out in a dignified and respectful manner. People were allowed to go at their own pace,without being rushed and continullay given encouragement and kept informed of what was happening.
There was a pleasant atmosphere in the home and people generally appeared to be relaxed, comfortable and familiar with the staff team. In talking to some staff it was clear that they had a good understanding of peoples' needs and knew how to meet them.
Some of the comments from relatives were, "All of the staff are really helpful and there is always enough staff in the home" and "everything is great. I wouldn't hestitate to say if it wasn't".