Cherry Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and accidents were analysed and measures put in place to reduce future risks. This included equipment to alert staff when people who were at risk of falls were attempting to mobilise independently. The lessons learned were shared with staff in meetings and electronically.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Before people moved into the service, their needs were assessed to reduce the risks of the service not being able to meet them. People and their representatives, where appropriate, participated in the assessment process to ensure the move into the service ran smoothly.

Important information about people was shared with other professionals, such as if a person needed to be admitted to hospital.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were systems in place designed to reduce the risks of abuse. This included policies and procedures and training for staff. To ensure staff understood their roles and responsibilities, safeguarding was discussed. For example, a recent staff meeting showed staff had completed a safeguarding quiz and conversations were held about keeping people safe. A staff member told us, “I am aware of the home’s policy on what to look for and how to inform others that this is happening and how to protect the person involved. I know where the policy is and I am aware of updates to it.”

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe living in the service. A relative said, “We have no worries about [family member] being there, no fears at all, [family member] is safe.”

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, actions were taken, including referrals made, to reduce the risks of unlawful restrictions to their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people were assessed and guidance provided to staff in how to reduce the risks. This included risks associated with moving and handling, falls, pressure ulcers, choking and diabetes. The registered manager told us they had changed their electronic planning system, which they had trialled for 8 weeks and were reverting back to the original system. They were in the process of reviewing the risk assessments in the current system to ensure they were up to date, as updates had been recorded in the previous system. Both systems were available to staff in the interim, and we were assured staff knew people well.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Not all of the pipes in people’s ensuite toilets which were hot to touch when hot water was running, were covered to reduce the risks of burns. The registered manager ordered additional materials to ensure the remaining hot pipes were appropriately covered.

Equipment such as moving and handling equipment was serviced and checked to ensure they were safe to use. The registered manager told us how staff had reported a fault in a hoist, actions were immediately taken and a new hoist was purchased. This demonstrated staff were alert to risks and took action to report.

Checks in the environment were undertaken to reduce risks, this included fire safety, portable electrical appliances and window restrictors. The environment was monitored to ensure any risks were identified and addressed. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) were in place for people, identifying the support they needed in case the service needed to be evacuated.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels was being kept under review to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The registered manager told us they had recruited an additional staff member on duty in the evenings and were also recruiting to fill the vacant activity staff role. Until this was covered, the previous activity staff were supporting some activities in the service.

We observed staff were attentive to people’s needs and responded to requests for assistance promptly. People told us staff were available when needed. One relative told us they felt there were enough staff, but some, “Stand around,” more than others. Another relative said, “From what I can see there are enough staff.”

We received mixed views from staff if there were enough staff working in the service. A staff member told us, “There can be times when a staff member calls in unwell and this can influence the home, but we pull together and office staff will help also management does as well.” The registered manager told us they could use agency staff to cover short term staff vacancies.

Staff received the training they needed to meet people’s needs safely and were supported to undertake qualifications relevant to their role. There were systems in place to provide staff with one-to-one supervision, which provided a forum to receive feedback, raise concerns and identify additional training needs.

Staff were recruited safely and staff personnel files were reviewed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service was visibly clean and there were no malodours. Staff had received training in infection control, and they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff competencies were being rolled out in donning and doffing PPE.

A relative told us, “It is very clean there, I can see [family member’s] room is clean and [family member] is well cared for.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines when they were needed and as prescribed. Safe systems were in place to store, order, administer and dispose of medicines. Staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines had been trained and their competency checked.

We observed a staff member supporting a person with their medicines. The person told us, “They are quite good with the medication.” A relative told us, “No problems with medication, [family member] gets it when needed.”