24 May 2012
During a routine inspection
We spoke with seven of the 22 people who were currently using the service on 24 May 2012 and a number of other people on 15 June 2012 and 20 June 2012. The majority of people we spoke with shared positive experiences of the care they received. They told us they liked living at the home and considered staff respected their privacy and dignity. One person said, 'The staff respect me. Everybody is very very kind, I'm very well looked after, I'm happy here and can't think of anything better.'
The majority of people told us they were happy with their care and this was also reflected in discussions held with visiting relatives. One visitor said, 'I have no concerns regarding the care and welfare of my mother.' One person expressed concern about not having their personal care needs attended to as often as they would like and needed.
People told us they felt safe living at the Cedars. Staff told us they had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected abuse or if they observed any poor practice.
We found the home in need of cleaning. There were not effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We were told the cleaner was not at work when we visited on 24 May 2012. One person told us they had raised concerns about the cleanliness of the home. During our initial visit two agency workers were sent to clean the home.
People told us they got their medication and they received it on time. We found that the health and welfare of people living at the Cedars was not being protected in relation to the management of their medication.
People told us they liked the staff. One person said, 'The staff are very nice and I get on well with them.' Not all staff files were available for inspection therefore we could not be assured that all of the necessary checks had been undertaken on staff prior to them commencing work at the Cedars. Staff said they had attended a number of training courses since our last inspection to better equip them to do their job. Agency staff confirmed they had received training via their agency and had received a brief induction to the home.
All but two people considered there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs. One person said they were kept waiting for a long time for staff to attend to them in the dining room in the mornings. They said, 'I have no complaints but you just can't get them when you want them.' Another person said, 'There's not enough staff, definitely not.' One visitor told us they were always met with kindness but the change of staff was confusing. We saw the home was heavily reliant on agency staff although we were told the home used the same regular staff wherever possible to provide continuity of care.
People told us staff looked after them well. They considered the staff had the right skills to do their jobs. Staff told us they had received training to keep people safe and meet their needs.
The majority of people told us they are asked on a daily basis if they were OK but no formal meetings or surveys were in place to gain their views about their care or how the service was run. One visiting relative told us they were happy to report concerns. They said, 'I do complain and they do put things right.' The relief manager shared the audits that she had started and acknowledged improvements needed to be made.
The relief manager had started to review record keeping systems and had introduced some new documentation for staff to complete. Not all records required by law were available for inspection.