Cedar House, Barham, Canterbury.Cedar House in Barham, Canterbury is a Hospitals - Mental health/capacity specialising in the provision of services relating to assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the 1983 act, caring for people whose rights are restricted under the mental health act, diagnostic and screening procedures, learning disabilities, mental health conditions and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 30th July 2019 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
20th May 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]() We carried out this inspection to follow up on non-compliance from previous inspections on 10 October 2013 and 22 November 2013. After the inspections the provider wrote to us to tell us what action they had taken to address this. At this inspection we looked at the non-compliance from previous inspections and confirmed that the provider had taken action, and was now compliant in these areas. At a previous inspection we found that staff were not always aware of how care should be provided to people using the service, and there were inconsistencies in how care and incidents were recorded. At this inspection we found that the provider had addressed this, that care had been reviewed, and that key information about the care of people using the service was easily accessible. The service had implemented a new system for recording and monitoring incidents. At a previous inspection we found the safeguarding processes to be non-compliant with a major impact on people using the service, and issued a warning notice which told the service they must take urgent action to address this. The service had not reported or responded appropriately to some of the safeguarding concerns that had been raised. At this inspection we confirmed that they had taken action to address the areas of non-compliance found at the previous inspection, and there were effective processes for reporting and responding to safeguarding concerns. At a previous inspection we found that the seclusion room did not meet the expected environmental standards. At this inspection we found that this had been addressed. At a previous inspection we found that the provider had not carried out all the necessary recruitment checks of all staff before they started work in the service. At this inspection we found that the provider had reviewed their processes to ensure that all new staff had the necessary recruitment checks completed before they worked unsupervised with people using the service; and had updated the recruitment records of existing staff where there were gaps.
22nd November 2013 - During an inspection in response to concerns
![]() We undertook this responsive inspection as concerns had been raised about the patients nursed in segregation and patients nursed for periods in seclusion. Concerns had also been raised about how patients were protected from abuse at the hospital. The inspection was undertaken with two Mental Health Act Commissioners. At this inspection we went to four of the wards at the hospital. We looked at specific areas of care and support on these wards. We did not visit Poplar Ward or Tonbridge Ward. The majority of patients who posed a risk to themselves or others had on-going multi - disciplinary assessments and plans of care in place. However, we found that the staff directly caring for one patient who was a high risk did not know the outcome of the MDT meetings and therefore did not have the guidance and support that they needed to care and support the patient in the best way. Patients and staff told us that at times when incidents occurred on the ward they did not feel safe at the service. The service had not taken the appropriate action to report some incidents of abuse. This meant that patients could not be sure were fully protected from all types of abuse or neglect. Patients who use the service rights to privacy, dignity, choice, autonomy and safety were not protected by the environment in which they lived.
10th October 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
![]() We inspected two wards at the service: Folkestone ward and Maidstone ward. We spent most of the time at this inspection on Folkestone as this was the part of the service where concerns were identified at the last inspection. On Folkestone ward patients told us that on the whole they felt involved in their care planning and they told us about their goals and aims. They were able to tell us what was in their care plans and about their aims and goals. Patients were involved with their Care Programme Approach planning meeting (CPA ). This meant that patients had a say about how their care and support was planned and delivered. The procedures for the recruitment were not always adhered to by the service. This meant that patients may be at risk of receiving care and support from staff who had not been suitably vetted. More staff had received up to date training they needed to make sure they had the knowledge and skills to deliver care and treatment to the patients safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff told us and records showed that staff received regular supervision to make sure they had the support and direction to carry out their roles effectively and safely. We did find that about 40% of care staff had not received and annual appraisal. This meant that some care staff had not received the support to help them develop and promote their skills and knowledge so that this could be used to benefit the patients and themselves.
1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection
![]() We rated the service as good because:
However,
|
Latest Additions:
|