We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cherry Trees Resource Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cherry Trees Resource Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
• The provider had installed a visitors’ booth in the building which meant that families could have a comfortable visit with minimal risk.
• Alternative ways for family members to keep in contact with those living at the service were used, for example Skype calls.
• Staff had received training in applying and removing personal protective equipment (PPE). We saw PPE was accessible throughout the home and staff used it in accordance with the most up to date guidance.
• Staff had received additional training in COVID-19 and infection control procedures which was provided in-house.
• There were clear signs around the home reminding staff about correct PPE.
• People who tested positive for Covid-19 were isolated in their bedrooms.
• Arrangements were in place for staff to appropriately social distance during breaks.
• COVID -19 testing for all staff and people at the service was conducted. Staff and people at the service had either already received a COVID-19 vaccination or had a scheduled date to receive this.
• Staff COVID-19 risk assessments had been completed for staff belonging to higher risk groups.
• Additional cleaning of high-touch areas, such as light switches and door handles, was completed.
Cherry Trees Resource Centre is a residential care home providing personal care to 44 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 45 older people, some of whom may be living with a dementia related condition in one purpose-built building with five wings.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received exceptional care and support from a staff team who valued and celebrated individuality and diversity. Care was provided in a highly respectful manner which put people at the heart of all that was provided. Visitors commented on the exceptional care and support they received, as well as their loved ones.
Staff worked exceptionally well together to involve people, and their family members in the planning and delivery of care. Staff used innovative ways to communicate with people. This involved developing individual communication methods, speaking in people’s known dialect and getting involved when one person taught them key words in their own native language.
People’s cultural diversity was supported and people were encouraged to attended specific day support services which specialised in meeting people’s cultural needs. Specific events such as themed Jamaican nights and annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender events were held to both celebrate diversity, share knowledge and support people with new experiences.
Diverse activities and events were arranged which provided people with meaningful occupation. This included gardening and growing fruit and vegetables, shared events with local schools and involvement with volunteers from the local community.
There was a shared culture of inclusion, engagement and continuous improvement which led to people feeling valued and in control of their support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The leadership of the home was commented on as being outstanding and everyone we spoke with said they would recommend the home. Staff commented that it was the best place they had worked and wanted their loved ones to move in.
People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and were able to use an online system to have video-consultations with healthcare professionals. This had been effective in reducing hospital admissions and supporting people to remain at the home.
Menus had been developed with involvement from people and specific dietary needs were catered for. One person had all their meals prepared off-menu to meet their needs. Snack stations and fresh fruit was available to people and visitors at all times.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.
People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to protect them from harm.
People were supported by enough staff to ensure they received care and support when they needed it and received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to make decisions and staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff were monitoring and responding to people’s health conditions.
People lived in a service where staff listened to them. People’s emotional needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting. People were supported to enjoy a social life.
People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run and there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.
We inspected the service on 5 August 2014. We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This was an unannounced inspection, which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
Cherry Trees Resource Centre provides accommodation and personal care for up to 45 people. On the day of our inspection 43 people were using the service.
The home had a registered manager and also a team leader who was responsible for the oversight of care delivery. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
In January 2014 our inspection found that the care provider was not meeting all of the essential standards of quality and safety in relation to care planning and medicines management. They sent us an action plan telling us what they would do to improve this and we followed this up during this inspection. We found that the provider had made the improvements in line with their action plan.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect the rights of adults using services by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by professionals who are trained to assess whether the restriction is needed.
The registered manager told us there was no one living at the home that was currently subject to a DoLS but that they had taken advice on this following the recent Supreme Court ruling. There was a policy in place on the MCA and DoLS and staff we spoke with understood the principles of this. We found the location was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The manager made safeguarding vulnerable adult’s referrals when needed and staff knew how to respond to incidents if the manager was not in the home. However, decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always recorded appropriately. This is an act introduced to protect people who lack capacity to make certain decisions because of illness or disability.
Staff had the knowledge and skills to care for people safely. Referrals were made to health care professionals for additional support or any required intervention when needed. This meant people would receive support from the appropriate people when their needs changed.
We observed people were treated with dignity and respect. People who used the service told us they felt staff were always kind and respectful to them.
There were audits and customer satisfaction surveys carried out in the home and where issues were identified action was taken to address these. This meant there were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the service.
We found that care was not always planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
We found that sufficient quantities of food and fluid were available to meet people's identified needs.
We found that appropriate arrangements for the recording and handling of medicines had not always been made.
We found that staff were recruited safely and appropriately.
We found that there was a suitable system to support people and their relatives to make comment or complain about the care they received.
We spoke with four relatives. They told us they were kept informed and involved in reviewing the care. They told us staff delivered care that met their relatives' needs and their relatives were well cared for. One person said, 'Absolutely. Couldn't do it better myself.'
People using the service who we spoke with told us they felt safe. Relatives told us they felt their relatives were safe.
One person using the service told us there were enough staff and their needs were met. Two other people did not provide feedback about the number of staff, but did not express any concerns about the staffing levels. We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff.
We found that staff received supervision, training and appraisals. One relative said, 'They all look pretty well trained to me. They all seem to know what they're doing.'
We found there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We saw there was a very pleasant and accessible outdoor area to the rear of the building which people said they liked to use. The garden had a chicken coop, rabbit run and many sensory objects to appeal to the people living at the service. We saw many people using the reception/cafe area to meet their friends, visitors and other people living at the service.
We saw that people often spent quite prolonged periods without any staff being with them. Although we did not see any identified risks in terms of people falling or coming to direct harm; there were people who became anxious and needed reassurance. In the absence of staff people living at the service were left to provide this for each other. This was not their area of responsibility and it created a risk of situations escalating beyond their control. We found the providers had failed to identify this as a risk and had not taken any action to manage or address this. This placed staff and people living or staying at the service in a vulnerable position.