- Care home
Cherington
Report from 30 October 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 21 November to 5 December 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people, including people living with dementia, and additional nursing care needs. This assessment was undertaken in response to concerns raised by the local authority, and to follow-up on improvements implemented since the last inspection undertaken in March 2019. We found 4 breaches of regulations relating to staffing, dignity and respect, person-centred care and good governance.
The service is registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. At the time of the assessment, the service was not used by anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
Staffing levels, including staff deployment, were not sufficient to ensure people received an acceptable standard of care which put them at risk. The home was dependent on a high use of agency staff as they had difficulty recruiting permanent staff, and this impacted on the consistency of care. Not all staff had completed the mandatory updates to training required by the provider, including infection prevention and control and safeguarding.
People were not always treated with dignity and respect, and the care delivered was task-led rather than person-centred. There was a lack of meaningful activities organised for people and a lack of mental stimulation. The physical environment was not dementia-friendly. Systems were not sufficiently robust to measure and monitor the home overall in order to drive improvement.
Accidents and incidents were logged and analysed, with any lessons learned shared with staff. Information was shared with other providers when people moved between services. The home provided a safe environment for people, and adaptations enabled people to move freely around the home. The environment, whilst accessible and uncluttered, did not provide inspiration for people living with dementia.
The home was generally clean and well maintained. Medicines were managed safely.
Assessments of people’s care and support needs were completed before they came to live at the home. Staff worked with a variety of services and shared information appropriately. Consent to care and treatment was gained lawfully. People’s end of life wishes were listened to and documented.
At the end of the inspection, we received assurances from the provider that issues found as part of this assessment were being addressed.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We completed a Short Observation Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a structured observation tool to understand the quality of life and wellbeing for people, especially those unable to communicate verbally. It involves focused, timed observations of interactions between staff and people
People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about their experience of Cherington. Overall people felt safe living at the home, but many said staffing levels were not sufficient to ensure a good standard of care. A relative said, “Sometimes there’s only 1 person in the lounge and that puts pressure on the staff member. If someone throws a drink and someone else is upset, they don’t know where to look first. Certainly they struggle.” Generally, people felt staff were well trained, and a relative told us, “Yes, I think the majority are. Some of the agency workers stand about and look lost, but the regular staff are very good.” People were not always treated with dignity and respect. We observed 1 person required support with their continence and a change of clothes. Staff had not noticed the person needed help until around three-quarters of an hour after the incident occurred. Staff were not always available to provide assistance for people when they had their lunchtime meal, and some people had hardly eaten anything. Staff did not always care for people with dignity and respect. One person commented that staff did not always knock on their bedroom door before entering.
There was a lack of meaningful activities available to people and no evidence to show how people were involved in planning any activities that reflected their interests. A relative said, “That’s one thing, the activities. They need much, much more. There’s not enough going on, there’s not enough stimulation.” People received their medicines from the nursing team. People were involved in assessments of their care and were supported with their healthcare. One person said, “Staff take me to healthcare appointments, or the doctor comes here.” People spoke positively about the food on offer. One said, “It’s very pleasant. Staff cut it up so I can eat it.” People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, and their relatives were involved in care planning. People were routinely asked for their consent by care staff before receiving personal care.