- Care home
Cherry Lodge
Assessment report published 11 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 13 October 2026 to 22 October 2026. We visited the service 13 October 2026. Cherry Lodge is a residential care home providing support to up to 27 older people. At the time of our assessment, there were 25 people using the service.
At our last assessment (published 25 March 2025), the service was rated requires improvement. The provider was in breach of regulations relating to person centred care and governance. We served a warning notice for the breach of regulation relating to governance.
This comprehensive assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service, and to check the provider had made improvements and met the requirements of the notices served. Improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. The rating for this service has changed from requires improvement to good.
The provider had a learning culture. Systems helped reduce risks of abuse and avoidable harm. The environment was clean and well-maintained and risks mitigated. Concerns about the safety of equipment were taken seriously and addressed. Not all hot pipes covered, the registered manager took action to address this. Staffing levels were kept under review and staff received training relevant to their role. The systems for managing medicines were safe and people received their medicines when needed.
People’s needs were assessed and the assessments were used to develop the care plans. The service had trialled a new electronic care planning system for 8 weeks, this had not met the service’s needs, and they had reverted back to the previous system. Updates and reviews were being undertaken in the current system.
People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed, and people’s choices and preferences were respected.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and respected people’s privacy, independence, choice and dignity. Staff were knowledgeable about people and their individual needs. People had access to social activity; however, this was in the process of being improved due to a vacancy of activity staff. People could provide feedback about their care, and their comments were valued and used to drive improvement.
Improvements had been made in the governance systems, which were ongoing. There was a culture of continuous improvement.
People's experience of this service
During our visit we spoke with 4 people and 1 relative. Following our visit, we spoke with 4 relatives on the telephone and received electronic feedback from 1 relative.
People told us they felt the staff were caring and compassionate and their choices were respected. A person said, “I am happy here, I like the staff they are all kind… staff listen to me, I choose what I want to do.”
We received mixed views from people about the provision of social activity. One person told us, “I am not bored, the staff do things with us.” However, we also received feedback that people were bored and would like more activities.
People and relatives told us they felt the quality of the care provided was good. A relative told us, “No problems at all. [Registered manager] is available if needed, staff are competent, [family member] gets what [they] need, good safe care and the staff really care about [family member].” Another relative said, “[Family member] is happy there and happy with the staff. [Family member] is well fed and looked after, we have no complaints.”
People told us they got enough to eat and drink, and the quality of food was good.
Relatives told us how they felt their family members were happy living in the service. A relative told us, “[Family member] is very happy, so we are happy.”