Cherry Tree Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders demonstrated a focused and positive approach to ensure people received good quality care. This home was a small, family run business where the core value was providing good care. It was clear staff, and the registered manager were committed to achieving this. Staff and relatives spoke very well about the registered manager. Their comments included, “The registered manager is the best manager, she is very supportive and she genuinely cares. She is not just running the place, she is here to make sure people are cared for and we do this together as a team.”

There was a clear management structure within the home, and the registered manager spoke about how this made things easier as there were effective procedures in place. The management team understood there were areas where improvement required embedding and a showed robust proactive approach.

Staff completed equality and diversity as part of their core training and the completion rate was high.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People told us the registered manager was accessible. One person told us, “The registered manager is an easy to approach person, if something worries me, I can talk with her.” The registered manager and the owner had a clear plan in place to improve the home, and we could see changes were already being embedded after a recent local authority audit. The provider spoke about the importance of working together to make changes to ensure the quality of care was good . They spoke about how this, “Met the values of the home.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There had been no whistleblowing concerns raised since the last inspection. Staff felt able to freely approach the management team with any concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider and leaders ensured equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce. For example, by making adjustments to work patterns to accommodate religious events or needs.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Management oversight had at times not been robust. The local authority had recently carried out a review of care, and as a result the nominated individual and registered manager had started to develop new governance systems, but these were yet to be embedded to evidence improvement. The registered manager was aware of the shortfalls, and they were working systematically through an action plan to ensure monitoring and audits were significantly robust however the audits had not identified the issues we found with medicines and safeguarding people from the potential risk of harm.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The management team and staff worked with external agencies, such as the local authority, healthcare professionals and other providers. The staff had good working relationships with healthcare professionals involved in the care of the people who used the service. We saw staff made referrals and followed professionals’ recommendations and guidance to help meet people's needs.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. The leadership team had a clear understanding of how to make improvements and were starting to make changes. People and staff were central to the changes being considered. For example, in response to staff raising concerns regarding the type of electronic care planning to log the provision of care, the registered manager had sourced software which was very user friendly and was providing intensive training for the staff team.