Background to this inspection
Updated
16 February 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type: Cherry Tree Lodge is a care home for people living with a learning disability.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The registered manager had been absent since July 2018. The provider had arranged for a staff member to be acting manager.
Notice of inspection
We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the staff and people are often out. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
What we did:
Before the inspection visit we used the information the provider sent us in Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection we spoke with the acting manager, three staff and two people who used the service. We looked at nine people’s care records. We also looked at records concerning the management of the service and notifications we received from the service. We spoke with a health professional who was visiting the service.
Updated
16 February 2019
What life is like for people using this service:
• People continued to experience good outcomes as a result of their care and support.
• People lived as independent lives as they wanted.
People’s experience of using this service:
Cherry Tree Lodge is a Victorian House. It was adapted to support people’s needs, but the décor was faded and untidy. Two rooms, including the manager’s office, were unsuitable for the purpose they were used. This was addressed by the provider after our inspection visit.
People were safe because staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
People were safe because their care plans included risk assessments that staff followed to keep people safe without undue restrictions.
People were supported by enough competent and skilled staff. Staff supported people safely and according to their individual preferences. Staff knew people well and had developed meaningful relationships with them.
People were supported to have their medicines at the right times. Arrangements for the management of medicines were safe.
Staff knew how to use the provider’s procedures for reporting concerns, for example concerns about poor or unsafe practice or incidents between people where one or more experienced harm. The provider had whistle-blowing procedures and staff knew how they could report concerns direct to the local safeguarding authority or the Care Quality Commission.
Staff were kind, caring and passionate about the service provided and there was a positive culture. Staff supported people with dignity and respect.
People’s needs were met by staff who had the relevant training and support.
People had a choice of meals and enjoyed a varied and balanced diet. Staff understood the cultural diversity of people and ensured that their cultural dietary needs were met. Staff also supported people to follow their faith and cultural needs.
Staff communicated well to ensure that people experienced care and support that was consistent, irrespective of which staff were on duty. People’s health needs were met. Staff supported people to access health services when they needed them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were involved in how the service was run and were supported to maintain their independence. They made their own choices about where they spent their time and how. They participated in a range of recreational, social and individual activities.
There was a registered manager who was away from the service; it was being managed by an acting manager. There were quality processes were in place to monitor the service but these were based on standards that ceased to exist from 1 October 2014. The views of people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals had not been sought since 2017.
The provider had not ensured that the details of their registered office were correctly notified to CQC and Companies House; each organisation was notified of a different address.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 15 June 2016)
About the service: Cherry Tree Lodge is a care home for up to 12 people with learning disabilities. It is located in West Bridgford in Nottinghamshire. At the time of our inspection visit nine people were using the service.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.