Cedardale Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People did not consistently receive person centred care. Care plans were not sufficiently detailed to inform staff how best to support them. People were not always treated as individuals, with consideration to their protected characteristics. We found one breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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. People’s care plans were not sufficiently detailed to inform staff how best to support people. One person’s care plan had another name listed throughout – but failed to mention this was the preferred name of the person. This could cause confusion for new staff members. Some parts of people’s care plan had not been completed, including personal information about people’s histories. Some people told us that they did not enjoy the activities on offer at the service. One person told us that joining in with them in the lounge made them feel ‘old’ and they felt they had nothing to talk about with other people. Another person told us, “I get bored, I am on my own as I don’t like sitting with (the people in lounge).” For the people who did not enjoy group activities, individual or alternative activities were not offered. One person had no meaningful activities detailed other than visits from their relative. People were regularly given food listed that they did not like. For example, one person’s care plan sated they did not like cheese, however their daily notes showed that between July and September 2024 they were given 12 dishes with cheese. Another person told us they disliked the food, as it was always ‘lukewarm.’

Staff told us they felt that activities for people could be better. One staff member told us, “I think people could do a lot more, people could have 1-1 in their rooms. For example, [name] will never come out.” People did not have care plans in place to inform staff how best to support people living with dementia. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed they should have a plan in place that tells staff what dementia people have, how it impacts them and how best to support them. Care plans did not detail how people like to spend their time and how staff should support them to engage in a meaningful way.

People did not always receive person centred care. One person had a cup that was sentimental to them. Staff told us that the cup was broken, then told us it was not broken but lost. The registered manager later located the cup, which had been put out of reach of the person, due to a risk of scalding. This had not been discussed with the person, or their loved one. Information from people’s pre-admission about what was important to them, was not being delivered. For example, one person enjoyed a beer but had not been offered any since moving into the service.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 were not always treated in a way that supported their equality. For example, one person was consistently re-directed to their bedroom, without any consideration of any activity other than an offer of a tea.

Staff and the registered manager did not have strong understanding and knowledge of how to support people living with dementia. Staff did not know how to support people when they became anxious, stating that they wanted to return home. One staff member demonstrated a lack of understanding of dementia when they commented that one person came out of their room too often. We signposted the registered manager to resources to help inform them on how best to support people living with dementia.

Processes were not in place to ensure that people’s care treatment and support promoted equality, and to ensure that people were treated as individuals. Care plans did not sufficiently detail people’s needs to ensure that any protected characteristics could be promoted.

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