• Care Home
  • Care home


Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Station Road, Angmering, Littlehampton, West Sussex, BN16 4HY (01903) 772524

Provided and run by:
Outreach 3-Way

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cherrymead on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Cherrymead, you can give feedback on this service.

30 May 2018

During a routine inspection

An unannounced comprehensive inspection took place at Cherrymead on 30 May 2018.

Cherrymead is registered to provide accommodation, care and support for up to seven people who live with a learning disability. Some people living at Cherrymead were also living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were seven people living at the home. The care service was in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion which were reflected in the values of the service and in the personalised care provided. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People had their own bedrooms which all had an en-suite bathroom with either a shower or bath. There was a communal lounge, a dining room and kitchen, a conservatory and garden.

The service had a registered manager in place. The registered manager had another management role for the organisation. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we completed our previous inspection in April 2016 there were concerns that not enough staff were present during the day to safely meet people’s needs. Since the last inspection, the provider and registered manager have worked with the local authority to determine safe staffing levels to address this breach of the regulation. We required the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to address this concern. At this inspection, there were sufficient staff numbers during the day to support people in the home and to accompany people if they are going out. Our observations and staff rotas confirmed this. Due to increased complex needs of the people living at Cherrymead, the registered manager and the provider took steps to resolve this by increasing staff numbers at night. We confirmed that the provider had taken sufficient action to address the previous breach of Regulation.

Staff were well trained but training for some staff was not up to date. Audits were done to check the safety and quality of the service but, shortfalls we found in relation to training being out of date for some staff had not been identified.

People and relatives had opportunities to give their views on the services and this feedback was acted on.

The provider had a clear strategy to support the independence of the people. Staff encouraged and promoted independence. 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 home support this practice.

Staff had increased activities provided for people and supported people to go out. The registered manager had taken steps to vary and improve the menu offered.

We observed that staff and people knew each other well and were observed to be caring, patient and gave time for supportive and meaningful interactions.

16 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 16 February 2016 and was unannounced.

Cherrymead provides care and accommodation for up to seven people. There were seven people aged 51 to 73 years living at the home when we inspected. The service specialises in the care of adults with a learning disability.

All bedrooms were single and each had an en-suite bathroom with either a shower or bath. There was a communal lounge, dining room and a conservatory which people were observed using.

The service had a registered manager who also had another management role for the organisation so worked part time at Cherrymead for between two and four days a week. 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.

The service did not use a dependency tool to assess the level of staffing needed to meet people’s needs. On the day of the inspection we observed there were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People and their relatives said the staff provided safe care.

Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.

People received their medicines safely.

Staff were well trained and supervised and had access to a range of relevant training courses, including nationally recognised qualifications.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment assessments were carried out in line with the MCA and its associated Code of Practice. DoLS applications had been made where people’s liberty was restricted for reasons of safety.

There was a choice of food and people were involved in planning the menus. People’s nutritional needs were assessed so the right action could be taken if people were at risk of malnutrition.

People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed and people received regular health checks.

Staff were caring and interacted well with people. A relative told us, “The staff care is absolutely fabulous.” People were observed to be comfortable approaching staff who responded to them with understanding and kindness.

Care was provided to people based on their individual needs which we call person centred care. People’s preferences and individual needs were acknowledged in the assessment of their needs and in how care was provided. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s changing needs.

People were supported to attend a range of meaningful activities including community facilities.

The service had an effective complaints procedure. Complaints were looked into and responded to.

People and their relatives were able to give their views on the service.

The service did not have a system for delegating a staff member to be operationally responsible for the service in the absence of the registered manager; staff and a relative were unclear about who was in charge during these periods. This was addressed following the inspection so there was a ‘lead’ staff member in charge when the registered manager was not present.

There were a number of systems for checking the safety and effectiveness of the service such as regular audits.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

3 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People were unable to tell us about their experiences of living in the home and their care and treatment. This is because people who used the service had learning difficulties and were unable to tell us about their experience. We spoke with the manager and staff, and observed people with staff. We spoke to a person's relative and reviewed people's records to help us understand how people were supported by the provider.

We found that people were supported to make decisions about their day to day care and treatment that took into account their communication needs. Where people lacked the capacity to make a decision about their health and wellbeing the provider followed a best interest decision making process.

A relative said "the best thing is the home is small and like a home, my relative looks very well cared for and seems happy there". We found that people were supported through person centred planning to identify their needs and plan their support. People were cared for safely.

We found that people's medicines were managed safely and appropriately.

We found that there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and that staff knew and understood people well. Staff were appropriately qualified and trained to meet people's needs and we saw that people had a good rapport with staff who understood and promoted people's communication needs.

We found that the provider had an effective complaints procedure available to people and/or their representatives.

21 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We met and spoke with four of the five people accommodated at Cherrymead. However, due to difficulties with communication linked to their disabilities we were unable to tell us about their experiences.

However, we read through recent satisfaction surveys completed by people, with the support of the care staff. They confirmed that people were satisfied with the delivery of care and support. One person said, 'Staff are nice to me.' Another person stated that most of the time they have been involved in meetings about the support they needed.

We also spoke with two relatives. This was by phone after we had visited Cherrymead. One relative told us, 'The staff are caring and attentive. It is a service I trust.' A second relative said, 'Everybody is treated as an individual.'

We spoke with members of staff who were on duty. They informed us that they had received training that provided them with the necessary skills to deliver the care and support that people required. They also said they felt well supported by the manager in their work.

The atmosphere throughout the visit was good. It was calm, friendly and homely. Staff were observed to have a good relationship with the people living there. When talking to people, staff were friendly and professional. They spoke clearly to ensure they were understood and listened carefully to make sure they knew what was expected of them.