You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 October 2017

We inspected this service on the 18 September 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. At our last inspection in May 2016 we found that people were not always supported by adequate staffing levels which negatively affected their daily activities and access to the community. In addition, the service had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission of specific incidents they were legally required to do.

The provider wrote to us in July 2016 and told us how compliance with these regulations would be achieved. During this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Cherrywood House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people who have a learning disability, autism or mental health needs. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of this inspection there were 10 people living at the service. Two of these people lived within individual flats that had their own bathrooms, toilets, kitchens, lounges and bedrooms. There were eight people who lived in the main house at the time of inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are registered persons. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was not the registered manager in post at our previous inspection and had commenced employment in Cherrywood House in November 2016.

People were now supported by sufficient numbers of staff. People and staff told us there was sufficient staff on duty that ensured people’s care and social needs were met. We made observations to support this. People received their medicines as required and there were processes to safely manage ‘as required’ medicines. Recruitment procedures were safe. Staff understood how to identify and respond to suspected or actual abuse and knew how to report matters internally and externally. People’s risks were identified, assessed and managed through guidance. There were systems to ensure regular maintenance and servicing of the environment and equipment was undertaken.

People received effective care from staff when they needed it. Staff received training and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and empowered people through choices. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in regards to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS is a framework to approve the deprivation of liberty for a person when they lack the capacity to consent to care or treatment or need protecting from harm. People had access to healthcare professionals as required. People received support to eat and drink sufficient amounts and we saw that where needed staff followed professional guidance for weight management. New staff received an induction in line with nationally recognised standards and ongoing training and supervision was provided.

Staff were caring and people and their relatives spoke positively about staff. No concerns about the staff were raised. We made observations that supported people’s comments, with staff supporting people in a person centred way in accordance with the preferences. Staff we spoke with understood the people they supported well and this was reinforced through our observations and how we observed staff interacting with people. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and when possible people were encouraged to be independent.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People were encouraged to undertake activities and access the wider community. There was sufficient staff to support people to do this. The registered manager had ensured that where people were less social, events were arranged in the service. People’s care records contained current information that was person centred. People had allocated keyworkers who ensured their needs were me

Inspection areas



Updated 13 October 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported by the appropriate levels of staff.

People�s risks were assessed and guidance to manage risks was produced.

People received their medicines as required.

There were processes to review reported incidents and accidents.

Recruitment procedures were safe and staff understood safeguarding.



Updated 13 October 2017

The service was effective.

People received effective care when they needed it.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had access to healthcare professionals as required.

Staff received induction and ongoing training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to eat well and drink sufficient amounts.



Updated 13 October 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring.

Staff were observed interacting in a kind and caring way.

People�s privacy was respected.

Staff understood the care and social needs of the people they supported.

People were encouraged to be independent where possible.



Updated 13 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s social activity needs were met.

Care records were personalised and showed people�s preferences.

The service was responsive to people�s changing needs.

People had the opportunity to attend meetings about the service.

There was a complaints procedure for people and their representatives.



Updated 13 October 2017

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives were positive about the current leadership.

There were systems to communicate with staff.

There were governance systems to monitor the quality of the service.

Staff were positive about their employment and their colleagues.

Statutory notifications had been sent as required.