You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 May 2018

Cherry Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service provides residential care in one adapted building for up to 19 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 16 people living in the service when we inspected on 6 March 2018. This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection.

We last inspected this service on 29 and 30 June 2017, the service was rated as Inadequate because we found the registered provider to be in breach of five regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We took urgent enforcement action to impose conditions on the providers’ registration, which stipulated that no new admissions to the service should be permitted without the written consent of the Commission. We also asked the provider to keep us informed of actions which had or were being taken to mitigate identified risks to the people they are supporting. We decided to impose these conditions on the provider’s registration to help ensure that people were no longer exposed to the risk of harm.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all the key questions to at least good. During this inspection on 6 March 2018, we found that significant improvements had been made towards meeting the requirements to help ensure that people received an improved quality of service.

Cherry Lodge has a registered manager; 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 people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place that provided guidance for staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments, which identified how risks to people were minimised. Environmental risk assessments and scheduled service plans were in place, but some were slightly out of date. At the time of this inspection, building work was being undertaken within the home that would require new safety certificates to be obtained on its completion. We were assured that all the required risk assessments, service plans and safety certificates would be obtained as the work allowed.

There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. We saw that recent recruitment files contained the records necessary to evidence that people were protected by staff that had been safely recruited. However, the registered manager had identified that some of the older files needed reviewing and this was underway. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely, following best practice guidelines.

When the building work is finished, redecoration throughout the whole house was planned. The registered manager told us that they would take the opportunity to ensure that the home was made more dementia friendly. This would enable people living with dementia to find their way around the building more easily and to identify their own bedrooms. This would increase their independence and help them to feel less anxious and more relaxed.

Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of L

Inspection areas



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was safe.

There was enough staff to meet people�s needs, Recruitment checks were robust and contributed to protecting people from staff not suitable to work in care.

There were systems in place that provided guidance for staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse.

There were systems in place to minimise risks to people and to keep them safe.

People were provided with their medicines and in a safe manner. The service was clean and hygienic.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people�s needs effectively.

The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services, which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

People were asked for their consent by staff before supporting them in line with legislation and guidance.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was caring.

We saw examples of positive and caring interaction between the staff and people living in the service.

People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on.

Staff protected people�s privacy and dignity.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

Outings and in-house activities were offered to people, but it was recognised by the registered manager that more activities and support to develop new hobbies should be offered to people and plans were in place to get this in place.

People�s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

People were supported at their end of their lives to have a comfortable and dignified death.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had made sufficient changes and improvements within the service since they had taken over its management in December 2017, to give us confidence that the service was well-led.

The service provided an open culture. People were asked for their views about the service and their comments were listened to and acted upon.

The service had a quality assurance system and identified shortfalls were addressed. As a result, the quality of the service was continuing to improve. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.