Cherry Tree Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans did not always include people’s preferences or long-term aspirations. The lack of personalised care planning meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not meet their individual needs or respect their choices.

Staff did not provide appropriate support to maximise people’s involvement in decision-making and care planning which created a risk that support was task-focused rather than person-centred. This reduced opportunities for people to have control over their lives. We heard conversations between staff about getting people up, washed and dressed and how they would achieve this, rather than asking people what they wanted. This demonstrated some people were not actively involved in decisions about their daily routines.

Reviews of people’s care were not completed effectively or in line with changing needs. Staff told us most people now required support with eating and drinking and had lost independence skills. Records did not clearly show people’s changing needs, making it difficult for professionals to evidence information for funding requests. Risks were not escalated quickly enough, for example, when someone experienced numerous falls that could not be mitigated in other ways, requests for additional funding were not prioritised to reflect urgency.

People who had funding for one-to-one support did not consistently receive care in line with their assessed needs and daily records were incomplete and often not completed by the allocated staff member. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not meet their current needs, increasing the likelihood of avoidable harm and reducing their quality of life.

The service did not meet the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. People’s individual communication needs were not recorded effectively, and accessible formats were not provided. People were not supported to access information about their care in a way they could understand. This meant people and those important to them could not always access accurate, up-to-date information about their care and support, which limited their involvement in decision-making.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to provide feedback and raise concerns. While relatives told us they felt confident their views would be listened to, they were not always informed about what had changed as a result. Information about how to raise concerns was not accessible for some people, which reduced their ability to speak up and have their views heard. People were not meaningfully involved in service development or improvement, which limited their ability to influence decisions about their care.

The provider made sure people could access care, treatment and support in a way that worked for them. For example, some healthcare services, such as opticians, visited the home to support people who could not easily access these services externally. Staff were aware of discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing services and were confident in challenging this.

Staff aimed to challenge inequalities and reduce barriers to accessing care and support. They told inspectors they felt confident advocating for people to prevent discrimination and had received training to support understanding of equality and diversity. Staff reported feeling confident in meeting people’s needs to ensure fair and inclusive care. However, people’s views were not actively sought, and those unable to easily express their experiences were not supported to provide feedback to help improve their care.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Discussions about end-of-life care were not routinely taking place. People had not been given opportunities to share their wishes or to revisit these conversations at a later stage. Although the provider had requested staff complete end-of-life training, completion rates were low. This meant we could not be assured staff were confident and knowledgeable enough to provide good end-of-life care or to have sensitive conversations about people’s wishes