Cherry Garden

Updated 17 June 2026

Cherry Garden is a care home providing accommodation and nursing care for up to 36 older people, some of whom live with dementia and physical health conditions. This assessment took place on 16 July 2026 and at the time of the assessment, 25 people were living at the service.

The service was registered to provide support to people living with a learning disability, although no one had a diagnosis at the time of the assessment. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to community facilities. We were assured the provider and staff demonstrated these principles.

We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People received care and support in an environment where there were systems and processes in place to keep them safe. Leaders had identified opportunities to ensure the environment would be dementia friendly following redecoration.

Care was designed to promote people’s choice and independence. Records included risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing which were managed. Medicines were administered safely. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. We found that staffing levels were generally sufficient to meet people’s needs, however observations during lunchtime indicated staff were busy and this reduced opportunities for meaningful engagement. Leaders acknowledged these pressures and agreed to review staffing arrangements.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found that staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
There was a positive culture within the service. Leaders were approachable and receptive to feedback.

Updated 17 June 2026

We received positive feedback from people and relatives about their experience using the service. People and relatives told us they were safe. One relative said, “Very safe here, the staff are so lovely. They really know [person]. I would have no worries speaking to any of them.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs, preferences and routines. Relatives told us staff understood approaches that reassured people when they become distressed. People were able to choose how they spent their time. There was an activities schedule which included outings. Staff respected when people did not want to engage and offered one-to-one or smaller group activities. One person said, “I think it’s already mapped out but I can choose what I do. I like to be outside, which I am all the time when it’s sunny.”

The provider ensured people had access to a range of healthcare services to support their health and wellbeing. One relative told us, “If the doctor comes, staff tell us if they have to tweak medicines. We’re totally involved.”

Leaders were visible and approachable. Relatives told us communication with the service was good and they were informed about changes in people’s health and wellbeing. One relative told us, “We’ve had a meeting regarding DoLS. They are very good at discussing with us and they will update us on anything.”

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), to understand the experiences of people who were less able to communicate verbally. People appeared comfortable and relaxed. Staff responded to people in a respectful manner. Overall, staff demonstrated kindness and respect towards people. However, improvements were needed to ensure dignity and person-centred interactions were consistently embedded across all aspects of care delivery.

Where areas for improvement were identified during the assessment, leaders were already aware of these and had started to take action to improve practice.