You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

This inspection took place on 09, 11 and 14 November 2018. This first day was unannounced but we informed the registered manager we would be returning on the second day to complete our inspection. We conducted telephone calls with relatives of people who lived in the home on the third day.

Cherrytrees Care Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 32 people. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people receiving nursing care and 9 people receiving residential care. The home provides support to older people, people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and younger people.

Cherrytrees is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home has two floors containing bedrooms and bathrooms. On the ground floor there was a large lounge, a dining room and a small quiet room near the entrance. The gardens were secure and accessible from the ground floor. There was a lift and stairs between the floors.

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 last inspected Cherrytrees in January 2016 when we rated the service as good overall and requires improvement in the responsive domain. This was because we had not seen evidence of people engaging in activities and found some people had not had regular reviews of their care or their medicines. At this inspection we found both these concerns had been fully responded to and have rated the home as good in all domains and overall.

Both people living in the home and their relatives told us they felt safe and secure.

The service protected people from the risk of harm or abuse. Safeguarding policies and procedures were robust and had been followed when required. Staff could identify safeguarding concerns and knew how to raise them appropriately.

Risk assessments had identified the specific risks people needed support to manage, plans had been developed to minimise the potential for harm.

Staff had been recruited safely with all necessary checks being completed prior to them starting to work with people. Staffing was sufficient to support people safely.

Medicines were managed safely. We saw people had received their medicines as prescribed.

Infection control policies ensured people were protected from the risk of infection and cross contamination. Staff were observed to follow good practice when supporting people to meet their personal care needs.

The home responded to accidents and incidents which had been fully investigated so lessons could be learned to avoid reoccurrence. An example of this had been the falls prediction strategy.

The premises and equipment were being well maintained and we saw certificates and relevant documentation of any work that had been completed. These included checks of electrical installation, fire alarms, legionella, gas safety, hoists/slings, the lift and fire equipment.

The home had assessed people's needs thoroughly prior to them moving in. This ensured the home was confident they were able to meet their needs and people received the correct level of service.

Staff had received relevant training which ensured they were able to support people effectively. People who lived in the home told us staff knew what they were doing and were skilled when supporting them. Training for all staff was kept up to date.

People were supported to maintain their nutritional needs. Information provided by health professionals had been included in people's care plans. The kitchen staff wer

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

The service was safe.

Robust safeguarding policies and procedures, combined with staff's awareness of how to raise concerns ensured people were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.

People had been supported to manage the risks inherent in their daily lives by risk management plans. These provided detailed information about the specific support the person needed in relation to all aspects of their health and social care needs.

Robust recruitment policies had been followed which ensured staff had been recruited safely with all necessary checks being completed prior to them starting work in the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs had been thoroughly assessed and care plans developed which included the advice and guidance of other professionals involved.

Staff had received training which ensured they were able to support people effectively. People living in the home told us they felt staff were skilled and knew how to support them.

The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People had been supported to make decisions and exercise choice. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent from people prior to providing all care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they felt staff were kind and caring. We observed staff supporting people respectfully. It was evident staff were committed to providing high quality care and took pride in the support they provided.

People had been supported to maintain their important relationships. Visitors had been welcomed at any time, some relatives told us how caring the home had been towards them and how they had valued this support.

People were supported to communicate and make choices and decisions about their care. Communication guides in people's care plans identified the most effective ways to communicate with them, including any non-verbal expressions and gestures which might show how a person was feeling.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. Details of what was important to the person had been included and we could see staff had followed this guidance.

People living in the home were encouraged to be involved in decisions and felt engaged in the home. One resident was on the interview panel for new staff and was part of making decisions about appointments. Residents' meetings were chaired by the residents and their suggestions and input had been responded to by the home.

The home had endeavoured to improve the quality of life for people living with dementia by seeking to improve their communication, using communication guides and ensuring specialist hearing checks had been completed. In addition they had sought alternatives to medicines to support people when they experienced distress.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 December 2018

The service was well led.

The home had clear values which aimed to provide high quality care which had positive outcomes for people living in the home. Staff were committed and praised the quality of the management team in providing effective leadership and guidance.

Effective governance ensured the manager had good oversight of the service which helped to maintain the standard of care they aspired to.

The home was working closely with other organisations and contributing to shared learning forums. We could see where this had added some value to the overall quality of the service.