Archived: The Cherries

Safe arrangements were in place for professionals visiting the service. This included a confirmed negative lateral flow device test result, proof of vaccination against COVID-19, hand sanitisation and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

The service was clean and fresh, staff carried out a regular cleaning schedule. Regular infection control audits took place and actions had been followed up when required. An additional cleaning schedule had been introduced to ensure robust measures to reduce infection risks, including additional tasks such as cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.

The provider had robust systems to ensure safe admissions, including only allowing new admissions after a confirmed negative result of the Covid-19 test. The provider had also assessed the environment, with consideration given where to allocate people should they need to isolate.

Staff had received training on infection prevention and control guidance. This included updates on the use of PPE and how to put it on, take it off and dispose safely. Staff's competency around infection control and PPE was checked regularly to prevent staff complacency. There was a designated area for donning and doffing PPE. There was signage all around the service on donning and doffing PPE and handwashing.

The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards.

The provider participated in the Covid-19 regular testing programme for both people and staff.

There was a comprehensive contingency plan of what to do in case of an outbreak. The management team completed risk assessments to assess and mitigate risks in relation to COVID-19.

The Cherries is a residential care home for seven people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection six people lived at the home. The care home is located within a residential town in Buckinghamshire. The main home is a two story building with communal and kitchen areas upstairs and bedrooms and bathrooms located on the lower ground floor.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives. We also observed positive interactions between people and staff. People told us they had developed a good working relationship with the staff. Comments included “I am really happy here,” “It’s good” and “They [staff] couldn’t do anything more for them.” A relative told us “I wouldn’t want my son to be anywhere else.”

People were protected from bullying and avoidable harm. Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise abuse and what to do in the event of a concern being raised. The service had clear processes in place to manage allegations of abuse and staff had received training.

Risks posed to people had been assessed and systems were in place to mitigate and reduce the risk of harm to people.

We observed people were supported by staff who were able to respond to their care needs when required.

People who required support with their prescribed medicines received this by staff who had received training. We found there were safe medicine management practices in place.

People were supported by staff who were supported to maintain their skills and develop new skills in line with best practice. Staff felt supported by the management team.

People’s human rights were supported. People were supported to understand and make decisions about their care needs.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy, balanced diet. People were supported to maintain their health and attend any external healthcare appointments.

People told us they were supported to maintain and improve their level of independence. One person told us “I like being independent, I like going out and meeting people in the local area.” A relative told us “He is so wonderful now, when he first moved into the home he did not have a lot of speech. I now am able to speak to him on the phone.”

We observed people were treated with dignity and respect. People were relaxed in the company of staff and were seen to be smiling and laughing with staff.

People received a personalised service as staff worked with them to understand their hopes and wishes. Care plans were written to support people achieve their aspirations. Reviews of care plans and support provided were undertaken in a way people could understand.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

There was a clear culture among the staff to support people achieve their potential and live the life they choose without barriers.

The service ensured it monitored the provision of care to drive improvements.

The registered manager was aware of their role and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of what needed to be reported to The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and how to meet the fundamental standards.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We looked at documentation, spoke with a staff member and relatives about how people consented to their care. We saw families were involved in advocating for their relatives. We also saw how specialist advocates supported people who did not have relatives to speak for them.

We looked at how food was prepared and how people were supported with their nutrition. We saw people were encouraged to have a healthy balanced diet, and food was presented in an appetising way. We noticed some parts of the kitchen area were in need of cleaning and redecoration. This posed a minor risk of cross contamination, as staff could not reach the high ceilings to clean.

The manager, staff and family members told us there were sufficient staff employed to meet the needs of people. Our observations and checks on the staff rota verified this. We observed how extra staff were brought into the home when needed to ensure people's needs were met.