Cherry Tree Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness and staff demonstrated a caring attitude with people and those close to them. Professionals observed staff being kind and caring, and people said they trusted staff. People’s privacy was respected and upheld.

Staff provided compassionate support; however, observations showed there were not enough staff to allow time to fully meet people’s care and support needs. It was unclear whether care and treatment reflected people’s preferences, as these were not documented in care plans or recorded in care notes. As reported on in Safe, it was not clear how some staff supported people when they were distressed and whether this was with compassion and dignity. Care plans contained undignified and unkind terminology such as calling people, stubborn, aggressive and having selective hearing.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had built positive relationships with them and those close to them. However, it was unclear how people wanted their care and support because person-centred information was not documented in care plans. Paper care plans contained more detail, but some information appeared outdated, raising concerns about the effectiveness of reviews. Care plans did not include robust information about how people communicated or what support they needed to participate in decisions.

People’s personal goals and aspirations were not documented, and there was no evidence of how they were supported to achieve these or helped to realise their ambitions. Care records were basic and task-focused, lacking person-centred detail. Meeting minutes from resident meetings were limited and did not show how everyone was supported to be fully involved, for example through picture sharing or other additional resources for those who needed them.

Care plans contained details of people’s day-to-day needs but did not reflect their preferences or routines. For example, they did not include information about their interests or important relationships and terminology used did not promote independence, choice or control.

Records did not show people were consistently supported to make choices. However, staff told us they offered options to people, such as choices of clothing, meals and what they wanted to watch on television. This was not reflected in care plans or daily notes, meaning there was limited assurance people’s preferences were consistently understood and respected.

Staffing levels and the absence of an activity’s coordinator meant people had very limited opportunities for meaningful activities or trips outside the home. While records showed some people had visits from relatives, they did not evidence regular activities, and access outside the home was very limited.

Despite this, visitors were not restricted, and people were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family. A staff member told us: “We have good relationships with families. They're welcome anytime and visit, no restrictions. If there is a restriction, we try to update the families, for example, not feeling well or visiting hospital. We collaborate well; they can phone anytime day or night.”

Staff were attentive to people’s needs and aimed to respond in the most appropriate way. Staff told us they recognised different ways people may communicate discomfort, pain or distress, including verbal and non-verbal cues. However, this information was not documented in care plans, and assessment tools were used inconsistently, as reported in Safe. This meant staff did not have clear, accessible guidance to ensure care was delivered in a consistent and person-centred way. As a result, there was a risk people’s needs could be overlooked or not met appropriately, leading to avoidable distress or deterioration in health and wellbeing.

Despite this, staff told us they knew how to escalate concerns if they believed a person’s health or wellbeing was deteriorating. Staff demonstrated concern for people’s wellbeing in a caring and meaningful way.

Staff reported feeling valued and treated in a way that supported their wellbeing. There were regular opportunities to share feedback and suggestions. Staff told us they felt listened to and received meaningful responses from the registered manager. Staff described being supported when facing challenges inside or outside of work, and examples were given of reasonable adjustments being made to promote their wellbeing.

However, some staff told us they did not always feel their workload was manageable due to staffing levels, which may have affected staff morale and the ability to consistently deliver high-quality care to people.