Cedardale Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were not always treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. We observed people who looked unkempt, and with greasy hair. Staff did not always speak about people in a dignified way. Care plans did not detail what people were able to do for themselves, and their independence was not always encouraged. We found 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care and dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

While some of the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not always meet the expected standards. One person told us they had had a shower that day, however their hair remained visibly greasy. We asked staff if the person had their hair washed, and staff could not confirm if they had.

Although we did observe some kind and compassionate interactions between staff and people, staff did not always approach people in an appropriate or dignified way. For example, staff leant over people, shouting and talking loudly to people. Activities staff prepared for people were not always dignified; for example childish games and nursery rhymes, and colouring sheets for people. The way staff spoke about people was not always dignified. For example, when we asked staff where a person was, they told us they were in bed. The staff member then said, “They come out when they want to, sometimes a bit too often.” This is not a dignified way to speak about people.

We observed that people were not always treated with kindness and dignity. We observed people with greasy hair, and looking unkempt. During our assessment a person went to the office to speak with the deputy manager and told them that staff had ignored them. The deputy manager then supported them with the task they needed help with. Following a fall, staff had taken photographs of a person to document any injuries to the person. However, the photographs were taken in an undignified way. Staff had not considered covering areas of the person which did not need to be photographed, or taking the photos at a more dignified time, when the person was not using the toilet.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

While some of the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not always meet the expected standards. People told us they did not always have choice and control of their lives. One person told us, “I get woken up, I think about 08.00.” Another person told us, “I have a bath once a week, that’s it.” When we asked them if they could bathe more regularly, they told us, “I don’t think so.” Another person told us, “Staff insist on taking me to the shower whether I like it or not, it’s so cold in there, I always feel unwell afterwards.”

Staff told us they supported people to be as independent as possible and to have as much choice and control of their lives as possible. However, the way they supported people did not always evidence this. For example, we asked staff what meal options there were for vegetarians, and we were told, the options were frozen fish fingers and fish in sauce. There were no options for people who did not eat fish, or did not enjoy fish. Daily notes we reviewed showed that people were often served food that their care plan stated they did not like.

Processes to ensure that people were supported to be as independent as possible were not robust and effective. Care plans did not promote people’s independence, or detail what a person was able to do on a good day, and what they might need more support with on a day where their mobility or cognition wasn’t as strong. One person could become distressed, but their care plan did not clearly detail how to support them in a positive way. For example, it referred to the person having ‘outbursts’ which is not a positive way to describe someone during a time of distress. There was no information about what could cause the person to become distressed or proactive strategies to stop them becoming distressed. Some people did not enjoy or join in with the group activities within the service. One person told us they preferred not to; within their care plan there was no further guidance on how to support them with leisure activities, or what the person liked doing.

We observed people did not always have choice and control. On the second day of our assessment, we observed people were not always offered a choice of meal at lunchtime. People were provided plastic aprons for meals without asking them if they wanted or needed one first.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.