The Cedars

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 4 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 22 January to 29 January 2026.

The Cedars is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 6 people with a learning disability or autistic people. At the time of our visit, 6 people were using the service.

A registered manager was in place. The registered manager is registered with the Commission and is legally responsible to ensure that the service is compliant with legal and regulatory requirements.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider was meeting the values of ‘Right support, right care, right culture.’ People were supported to express their views and opinions in various ways.

People had different ways of communicating and staff understood how best to share information for people to make their own choices and decisions.

The Cedars was well-led. The provider's vision and values were person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service. This vision was driven by the leadership of the registered manager.

Care records were in place to ensure staff had guidance to meet people’s needs in a person-centred way. Risk assessments were in place, and they identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Accidents and incidents were investigated thoroughly, action taken, and lessons learned.The staff team supported some people with complex needs. There was clear evidence of collaborative working and communication with other professionals. People were encouraged and supported to lead as fulfilled a life as possible. People enjoyed community outings. Staff supported people to participate in activities and explore new interests to enhance their quality of life. Relatives described how people received personalised care and support that was tailored to people’s needs and preferences.

The service was flexible and adapted to people's changing needs and wishes and promoted their independence. There were examples of improvements to the well-being of people due to the person-centred care they received.

Staffing capacity was sufficient and staff deployment was effective to ensure people's needs were met in a safe, timely, person-centred and consistent way. Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. Staff demonstrated that they understood the importance and benefits of providing person-centred care. The staff team knew people well and provided support discreetly and with compassion. People’s privacy was respected, and people were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends.

The culture of the service was friendly, open and transparent where people's and staff voices were listened to in order to improve the quality of care. People, relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. They recognised that their views and feedback were valued and respected and consistently used to support quality service development.

The registered manager and provider were continually developing the service to meet and maximise people's outcomes. Effective auditing systems were in place.