Archived: Cherry Trees

We inspected this service on 1 December 2014. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in July 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, as they had left the organisation two months prior to our inspection. The newly appointed manager planned to register with us once their probationary period was completed. The manager has previously been registered with us.

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.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 14 older people who may have dementia. Ten people were living at the home on the day of our inspection. People who lived at the home told us they felt safe living at the home. People were safe because the manager and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from harm. We found the provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to minimise risks to people’s safety.

The manager assessed risks to people’s health and welfare and wrote care plans that minimised the identified risks. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities because they read the care plans and shadowed experienced staff until they knew people well.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s physical and social needs. The manager made all the appropriate checks on staff’s suitability to deliver personal care during the recruitment process.

The manager checked that the premises and equipment were well maintained and serviced to minimise risks to people’s safety. People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

Staff received training and support that ensured people’s needs were met effectively. Staff had opportunities to reflect on their practice and learn from other staff.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). No one was under a DoLS at the time of our inspection. For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their families and other health professionals were involved in discussions about who should make decisions in their best interests.

We saw staff offered people a choice of meals. Risks to people’s nutrition were minimised because staff understood the importance of offering appetising meals that were suitable for people’s individual dietary needs.

Staff monitored and recorded people’s moods, appetites and behaviours so they knew when people might be at risk of poor health. Staff referred people to other health professionals for advice and support when their health needs changed.

Relatives told us they could visit at any time and always felt welcome. We saw staff understood people who were not able to communicate verbally and supported them with kindness and compassion. Staff reassured and encouraged people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs, abilities and preferences and care plans were regularly reviewed.

People who lived at the home, their relatives and other health professionals were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service to make sure improvements were made when needed.

The provider’s quality monitoring system included regular checks of people’s care plans, medicines administration and staff’s practice. Accidents, incidents, falls and complaints were investigated and actions taken to minimise the risks of a re-occurrence.