You are here

Archived: Cherry Trees Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 February 2015

Cherry Trees is registered to care for 89 people requiring personal and nursing care in the categories of dementia, old age and physical disability. On the day of our inspection there were 68 people living in the home.

There was a manager at the service who at the time of our inspection was in the process of registering with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We last inspected Cherry Trees on 7 July 2014 and found at that time the service was not meeting the requirements of regulation 23, supporting workers. At this inspection we found staff received training, supervision and an annual appraisal.

Since our last inspection Barnsley Local Authority had placed a statutory embargo on admissions to the home. This was because they had received information of concern through safeguarding referrels. This meant new people could not be admitted to the home because the local authority had concerns about the quality of care provided. The local authority were continuing to monitor progress at the home and carrying out ‘spot checks’. The healthcare professionals we contacted prior to this inspection told us the new management team at the home were improving the service and they did not have any significant concerns.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 28 October 2014. During the visit, we spoke with nine people living at the home, the regional manager, the deputy manager, two professional visitors, three relatives and 12 members of staff.

People told us they were well cared for in this home. People said, “I’m happy here and feel safe,” “I don’t know what I’d do without them, they’re all so kind and caring,” “They are nice lasses, nothing is too much trouble for them” and “I’m happy here and have no worries.”

Relatives told us, “The staff are marvellous, they put up with so much,” “Staff are lovely,” “I have finally got peace of mind that my relative is being looked after” and “My relative has always been well cared for at Cherry Trees. The staff are always welcoming, approachable and professional. My relatives well being is of utmost importance to me and I am confident they are happy and in a safe environment.”

We saw staff advising and supporting people in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity. People told us their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was delivered.

Seven external professionals we contacted before the inspection, which included specialist nurses, a dentist, social workers and a pharmacist said the service had recently improved. One healthcare professional told us the managers were continuing to make improvements to the overall appearance of the home and were recruiting new staff. They said generally there was a lot of improvement within the home.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves.

The manager had recently employed two new activity workers who were in addition to the one already employed. This meant an extended and more varied activity programme would be available to people who used the service. We saw people participated in a range of daily activities many of which were meaningful and promoted their independence in and outside the service.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy lifestyle which included being provided with nutritious meals and being supported to attend healthcare appointments.

Staff said the training provided them with the skills and knowledge they needed to do their jobs. Care staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and confident in the way the service was managed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 February 2015

The service was safe.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

There were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.

Staff had training in safeguarding and were aware of the procedures to follow to report abuse. People expressed no fears or concerns for their safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 February 2015

The service was effective.

People were supported to receive adequate nutrition and hydration.

Staff had processes in place to identify where people required referrals to other professionals so that people received care to meet their health needs.

Staff were appropriately trained and supervised to provide care and support to people who used the service

Caring

Good

Updated 12 February 2015

The service was caring.

We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and knew people’s preferences well.

Staff were caring in their approach and interactions with people. They assisted people with patience and offered prompting and encouragement where required.

Relatives and friends were encouraged to visit at any time and they said they were made to feel very welcome during their visits.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 February 2015

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were under review and had been amended in response to changes in their needs.

Staff understood people’s preferences and their abilities. A varied activity programme took into account people’s personal hobbies and interests.

People and relatives told us they felt confident to raise any issues with staff and managers and felt their concerns would be listened to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 February 2015

The service required improvement in this area.

The manager was not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission however an application was in progress at the time of our inspection.

The provider, manager and staff told us they felt they had a good team. Staff said the manager and provider were approachable and communication was good within the home. Team meetings took place where staff could discuss various topics and share good practice.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.