You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 July 2014
Date of Publication: 2 August 2014
Inspection Report published 02 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 11 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Cherrytrees Care Home is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for a maximum of 32 people. On the day of our inspection there were 26 people who were resident at the home of whom 14 were receiving nursing care and 12 were receiving personal care.

As part of the inspection we spoke to seven people who used the service, four visiting relatives and two health care professionals. We also spoke to seven members of staff.

At the time of our inspection, the manager had been in place since April 2014 and had recently submitted an application to CQC to formally register as manager. We were informed that a number of changes had taken place and that the service was still undergoing a programme of change and improvement.

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector, who addressed our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person who used the service told us; �Yes I feel safe here, the staff are great.�

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff we spoke to were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the legislation and its requirements.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore people were not put at unnecessary risk.

The manager set staff rotas having regard to people�s care needs, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. People told us they felt staffing levels were adequate. This helped to ensure that people�s needs were always met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

Though people told us they felt they had been involved in determining their care needs, it was not always clear to us from looking at care files that people had been consulted.

Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People�s needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, �No concerns, visitors just pop in.� �I think it is a good place, they do take care of people here.� �I go to bed when I want to, or chill out in my room.� �I�m content as you can be in a place like this.� A relative told us; �X seems content here and doesn�t want to move.�

People who used the service and their relatives completed a satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

We found care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at how these complaints had been dealt with and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. One visiting health care professional told us; �Things have improved from what I can tell. No concerns around safety.�

The service had quality assurance systems, records viewed by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.