You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Cherry Tree Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

This inspection took place on 12 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Cherry Tree Lodge specialises in the care of people who have a learning disability. It provides accommodation for up to nine people who require personal and nursing care. On the day of our inspection there were nine people living at the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

We found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely. The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people and staff knew how to keep people safe. Risk assessments were in place and accidents and incidents were monitored and recorded. Medicines were administered and stored safely. Arrangements were not in place to ensure appropriate advice was sought where people required their medicines to be given in food. We have made a recommendation about the providers medicine policy.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).If the location is a care home the Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS, and to report on what we find.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals such as a dietician and GP. Staff were kind and sensitive to people when they were providing support. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs. People were supported to pursue leisure activities and access local facilities.

Staff were aware of people’s need for privacy and dignity and made arrangements to provide this.

People were supported to eat enough to keep them healthy. People had access to drinks and snacks during the day and had choices when planning meals. Where people had special dietary requirements we saw that these were provided for.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs however staff retention had been problematic. Staff were provided with training on a variety of subjects to ensure that they had the skills to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt able to raise concerns and issues with management. A process for raising concerns was in place. People and relatives knew how to complain and the provider recorded and monitored complaints.

Audits were carried out on a regular basis and action put in place to address any concerns and issues.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were stored and handled safely. Arrangements were not in place to ensure appropriate advice was sought where people required their medicines to be given in food.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received training and were aware of how to keep people safe from harm.

Staff were aware of risks to people and knew how to manage those risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received training to support them in their role.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet and had access other health professionals and services.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

The service was caring.

There was a warm and pleasant atmosphere in the home and staff were kind and caring to people.

People’s privacy and dignity was protected and staff were aware of people’s individual need for privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to pursue leisure activities.

People had their needs regularly assessed and reviewed.

People were supported to raise issues and concerns. Relatives knew how to complain and would feel

able to if required.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 January 2017

The service was well led.

Staff felt supported. Processes were in place to communicate with people and their relatives and to encourage an open dialogue.

Processes were in place for checking the quality of the service.

There was an open culture in the home.