Cherry Tree Lodge Nursing Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not consistently experience care that was centred around their individual needs and preferences.

Whilst care plans contained information about people's preferences and support needs, observations indicated that support was not always tailored around the person. During parts of the assessment, care appeared organised around established routines and tasks rather than being adapted to reflect what was important to people at that time.

This was particularly evident during the evening, where support followed a predictable pattern and there was limited evidence that people's care was being shaped around their individual wishes or wellbeing. As a result, people's experiences appeared sometimes service-led rather than person-led.

People's care and support was largely coordinated around their ongoing needs and involved input from a range of services where required.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals and other agencies to help ensure people received the support they needed. Feedback regarding the effectiveness of these arrangements was mixed, with examples of positive multidisciplinary working alongside some concerns regarding communication and delays in accessing documents.

Relatives described being kept informed when significant changes occurred and spoke positively about communication from the service.

People were supported by staff who had often known them for many years and understood their health and support needs. This helped to maintain continuity of care when people's needs changed.

People were not always provided with information in ways that supported them to understand and engage with their care and support.

Care plans contained information about people's communication needs and how staff should support them. Most staff were able to describe how people communicated and demonstrated an understanding of many people's individual communication methods.

However, people relied on staff consistently using these approaches to help them understand and participate in everyday interactions and decisions. Observations showed this did not always happen in practice. This was particularly relevant for people who communicated non-verbally and relied on staff recognising and responding to their communication in order to support meaningful involvement in their care and support.

Whilst information about people's communication needs was available, further work was needed to ensure this was consistently translated into practice.

People and those important to them were encouraged to share their views and experiences. Relatives described staff as approachable and felt comfortable raising concerns or discussing issues affecting their family members. Relatives were confident their family members had opportunities to communicate their views and experiences. One relative told us their family member would let them know if they were unhappy with the support they received.

Families told us staff listened to them and acted when concerns were raised. One relative explained that if they were worried about their family member's health, staff would respond promptly and seek appropriate medical advice.

Relatives felt informed about significant events and changes affecting their family members.

However, for people who relied on non-verbal communication, it was not always clear how their views and preferences had influenced decisions about their care and support. This reduced assurance that all people had equal opportunities to have their voice heard and acted upon.

People were supported to access the care, treatment and support they needed.

Staff understood people's individual needs and any barriers they faced when accessing services. Staff worked with a range of healthcare professionals and external agencies to help ensure people were able to access care and treatment in ways that supported their needs.

A professional described staff as knowledgeable about the people they supported and spoke positively about partnership working. Staff were proactive in advocating for people and helping them access the services and support they needed.

Care records demonstrated involvement from relevant professionals where required and there were no concerns identified regarding people's access to healthcare services.

People did not always experience the same quality of care and support.

Observations showed that people's experiences could vary depending on how support was delivered. Whilst many positive interactions were seen, people did not always receive the same level of engagement and person-centred support throughout their day.

At times, support promoted people's wellbeing and involvement. At other times, interactions were more task-focused and centred on completing routines. This meant people did not always experience the same opportunities to be involved and supported in ways that reflected their individual needs.

Relatives and professionals were generally positive about the care people received. However, our observations indicated that the quality of people's day-to-day experiences was not consistent. This reduced assurance that all people always experienced the same quality of support and engagement.

People's future care and support needs were considered as part of ongoing reviews and discussions with those important to them. Relatives were kept informed about changes affecting their family members and described positive communication from the service when people's needs changed. Care plans mostly reflected people's current needs and support requirements.

Opportunities remained to strengthen how future changes in people's care and support needs were recorded and discussed, particularly where people relied on others to support decision-making.