Cedar House is located in the village of Rothley, Leicestershire. The service provides care and accommodation for up to 37 older people with age related needs. On the day of our inspection there were 35 people living at the service.

At the last inspection, in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe living at Cedar House. The staff team were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe from avoidable harm and knew to report any concerns to the management team.

People’s needs had been assessed and the risks associated with their care and support had been assessed and managed.

Care plans had been developed for each person using the service and although these were not always thorough in content; the staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting well.

Checks had been carried out when new members of staff had started working at the service. This was to make sure that they were suitable and safe to work there. An induction into the service had been provided for all new staff members and on-going training was being delivered. This enabled the staff team to provide the care and support that people needed.

Staff members were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had been involved in making day to day decisions about their care and support and the staff team understood their responsibilities with regard to gaining people’s consent.

People received their medicines as prescribed though the recording of when people were assisted to apply their creams was not always consistent.

People’s nutritional and dietary requirements had been assessed and a balanced diet was provided, with a choice at each mealtime. Monitoring records used to monitor people’s food and fluid intake were not always completed to accurately show snacks and drinks offered in the evening.

People we spoke with felt there were currently enough members of staff on duty each day because their care and support needs were being met.

People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to relevant healthcare services such as doctors and community nurses and they received on-going healthcare support.

The care workers we spoke with felt supported by the management team and they felt able to speak with them if they wanted to raise any issues.

People told us that the staff team were kind and caring and they treated people with respect. The relatives we spoke with agreed and we observed the staff team treating people in a kindly manner throughout our visit.

People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities. An activities leader was employed and they supported the people using the service with both one to one and group activities which people clearly enjoyed.

Relatives and friends were encouraged to visit and they told us that they were made welcome at all times by the staff team.

People using the service and their relatives knew what to do if they had a concern of any kind. A formal complaints process was in place and this was displayed. Everyone we spoke with were confident that any concerns that they had would be taken seriously and acted upon.

Meetings were held and surveys were used to gather people's views on the service provided.

There were systems in place to regularly monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided. Regular checks had been carried out on the environment and on the equipment used to maintain people’s safety.

A business continuity plan was in place for emergencies or untoward events.

The registered manager understood their legal responsibility for notifying the Care Quality Commission of deaths, incidents and injuries that occurred or affected people who used the service.

This inspection took place on the 9 March 2015 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 6 November 2013 we found the provider met the requirements of the regulations that we looked at.

Cedar House is a care home for up to 32 older people in the village of Rothley in Leicestershire. On the day of our inspection 26 people were living at the home and two people were in hospital.

Cedar House is required to have a registered manager in post. 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. At the time of the inspection a registered manager was in post.

People who lived at Cedar House and their relatives told us people were safe. There were processes and systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. This included safe recruitment and staff training in safeguarding people against the risk of abuse.

People’s health and social care needs had been assessed. However, we found examples that showed there were some shortfalls in the content of information in plans of care. Risks associated to people’s health care needs sometimes lacked specific details for staff however, the registered manager took immediate action to make the required improvements.

People told us that they received their medicines safely and we saw the administration and storage of medicines were correct. There were suitably qualified staff that were deployed appropriately to meet people’s needs. The environment was safe and met people’s needs.

People said that care workers were kind, caring and respectful and that their dignity was maintained and individual needs met. We observed care workers to be supportive to people’s choices and needs.

Care workers were aware of the importance of gaining consent before care and treatment was given. The provider had new policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of Practice. The registered manager had started to formally assess people’s mental capacity where people could not make certain decisions with regard to their care and treatment.

The provider was meeting the requirements set out in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of our inspection, no authorisations had been made under DoLS to restrict people of their freedom or liberties. However, the registered manager gave examples of when they had submitted applications.

People told us that they were happy with the food choices and that their dietary and hydration needs were met. We observed lunchtime and saw people received a choice of what to eat and the food was freshly prepared and was well presented and looked appetising.

People said that they were supported to access healthcare services and that they had visits from the GP and community nurse if required. We saw the provider worked with healthcare professionals and sought advice and support when required.

The provider employed a dedicated activities coordinator who provided daily meaningful activities and developed opportunities to meet people’s individual interests and hobbies.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service people received. Care workers told us they felt supported by the management team and that they worked well as a team.

People who used the service told us they were happy to live at the home and that they were well looked after. One person told us, "I couldn't be looked after any better." A relative told us, "The staff make my mother feel special." People told us that staff respected the choices they made and had provided personal care in privacy and with dignity.

People told us that staff listened to them and responded promptly to requests for assistance. A person told us, "They're so kind to me. If I ask for anything it's done right away." Another person told us, "When I've used the call alarm staff have come immediately."

People told us that they felt safe and comfortable at the home. They knew how they could raise any concerns and were confident they would be listened to. People told us that the manager had responded quickly to requests about the furnishing of their bedrooms.

People were able to spend their time as they chose. People had exercised choice about which communal areas they used. The home had three lounges and quiet seating areas which people used to spend time with other residents. People told us that they were pleased with the facilities at the home and the recreational activities that had been arranged for them. One person told us, "There is something going on every afternoon."

What we saw and observed confirmed what people had told us about the service. We found that the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.