Cherry 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 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider had made improvements from the last inspection regarding the delivery of person centred care and was no longer in breach of this regulation. We found people and their relatives, friends or advocate, where possible, had taken part in care assessments and reviews. The care plans we looked at had been reviewed and where people’s needs and support had changed, the care plans were updated.

We found some minor discrepancies, for example 1 person’s care records had not reflected detailed information about when staff were to refer the person to the community nurses concerning their sore skin. However, conversations with staff and the registered manager demonstrated they knew the action to be taken and when. This was supported with feedback from the community nursing team. The registered manager said the missing detail would be added to the care plan.

Overall, the content of care plans was personalised with instructions for staff on how to support people in line with their personal wishes. Relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes to their loved one’s needs. People with capacity to manage their health conditions were given information about their treatment options so they could make informed decisions in relation to the advice provided. For example, continuing to smoke, drink alcohol and eat solid foodstuffs. We found these decisions had been recorded in people’s care plans, along with the relevant risk assessments.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, and worked with health and social professionals to make sure care was joined-up, flexible and supported people’s choice and continuity of care.

Historically, the provider had a high turnover of staff which had previously impacted on the continuity of care provided. The Provider Information Return (PIR] told us the provider had ‘focused on improving staff retention’ with incentives such as employee of the month, internal opportunities for career advancement and improved training. The PIR is a document providers complete each year and send to CQC to tell us what improvements they have made to their service. We found at this assessment people received care from a permanent staff team and there had been no use of agency staff. People and their relatives told us having the same care staff providing support meant the care was consistent and met people’s individual needs making it a more person centred approach to caring for people. People told us they received the care when they needed it. We were told staff had a good understanding of people’s health and support needs.

The provider was aware of the requirement to supply, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, did not always provide accessible information in alternative languages in people’s care plans. People told us they were happy with the information they received and confirmed it was in a way they understood.

We found in the dining room; the daily menu was in picture format on a main board supported with a description in alternative languages. The provider showed us flash cards in picture format and alternative languages, although we did not see these being used during our site visits. One person was able to watch the daily news on a separate television in their preferred language.

Staff were generally able to converse with people where English was not their first language. We were able to speak with 1 person in their first language with support from a member of staff. This person told us staff, while kind, were limited in their ability to support fully due to the language barriers, which affected the person’s ability to feel fully understood. The provider, at the time of this assessment, was in communication with the appropriate agencies, including trying to find an advocate for the person.

Pre assessments identified whether people had any specific communication needs.

The provider had processes in place for people to share feedback, ideas and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. The provider’s complaints policy set out the steps complainants needed to take and where to refer them in the event they were not satisfied with the outcome of any investigation into their complaint. For example, the Local Government Ombudsman.

The provider investigated complaints in a timely way and had apologised where errors had been identified. Improvements had been made to the provider’s processes when things had gone wrong to identify any trends and put actions in place to share learning and mitigate future occurrences.

People and relatives told us they knew how and who to contact about any concerns or issues they might have. People and their relatives all said they were confident the provider would deal with their concerns promptly. One person told us, “I would have no hesitation in contacting (registered manager] if I needed to raise anything.”

People did feel listened to and had been given the opportunity to give feedback on the quality of the service they received from the provider. We found issues raised by relatives and friends with the provider, had been addressed in a timely way and resolved to their satisfaction.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and their relatives told us they would contact the provider if they required support to access any care services to receive treatment when required.

The provider told us they made sure staff were available to support people to attend medical appointments when required. People told us they were involved in the planning of their support and care plans reflected their input. People and their relatives told us they were in regular contact with the provider and any changes in care needs were addressed in a timely way.

People and their relatives were supported to access care and treatment when necessary. They told us the provider and staff listened to their views and would take appropriate action where required. Everyone spoken with had confidence in the provider and told us they could raise any concerns and knew they would be dealt with in a timely manner.

Staff had completed their training relating to discrimination and inequality and how that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support. They knew when to raise any concerns regarding these issues with the provider.

At the time of the assessment, there was no one currently supported by the service who required end of life care and support. However, the provider had processes in place that would support people 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.

The care plans we looked at had considered people’s preferences and person centred information had been obtained about some people’s last wishes. Where people and their relatives had not wished to discuss plans for the future, it had been documented with a view to revisit later in the person’s stay at the service.