You are here

Archived: Cherry Care Services Limited - Witney Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 May 2015

We inspected Cherry Care Services on 31 March 2015. This is a family run service that works from a location in Witney and has been providing personal care and support for people with a range of needs who live in their own homes.

This inspection took place on the 31 March 2015 it was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert by experience (ExE). An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.

People were supported by staff that understood that some people needed support to make decisions, and had raised concerns when they felt people were having decision made for them the service did not understand principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The MCA provides a legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time.

Staff were supported through comprehensive supervision that enabled them to reflect and improve on their practice. Staff received relevant training to carry out their role and were offered additional training when people’s support needs changed.

People felt safe and the service had sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Risks in relations to people’s support needs were assessed with clear guidance for staff in people’s support plans on how to manage those risks.

People benefited from the support of caring staff and told us how they valued their relationships with their support staff and looked forward to them coming. People were involved in decisions regarding their care and their choices were respected.

People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Care staff understood people’s support needs and took immediate action if these needs changed with support when needed from other professionals.

People, their relatives and care staff all told us they felt the service was well led. They told us the manager was approachable and took their views on board. The service was family run and its vision was built on a personal experience of quality support and wanting to give other people the same experience. Staff were able to share this vision and people using the service consistently told us that this was also their experience.

Inspection areas



Updated 11 May 2015

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs.

Arrangements for medicines were in place to ensure they were administered safely and stored appropriately.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and the service had an effective procedure in place to ensure people were safe.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 May 2015

The service was not always effective.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not embedded or consistently understood amongst the staff team regarding supporting people to make their own choices.

People were supported by staff who were well trained and supported. Staff received appropriate supervision, appraisals and training.

People were supported to access appropriate healthcare routinely or when their needs changed.



Updated 11 May 2015

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who made them feel comfortable.

People were involved in their care planning and were informed about the service and options available to them.



Updated 11 May 2015

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and used to provide comprehensive support plans which staff understood and followed.

People told us the service was responsive. Staff identified people’s changing needs and involved other professionals where required.

The service had a clear complaints policy, but regular contact with each service user meant concerns were managed before becoming complaints.



Updated 11 May 2015

The service was well led.

There was a system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and drive improvement. This system was being reviewed as the service got bigger to ensure it was effective.

Staff spoke positively about the team and the leadership. They described the registered manager and other senior staff as being supportive and approachable.

The leadership throughout the service created a culture of openness that made people feel included and well supported.