The Cherry Tree

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. A family member told us, “[Staff] always make sure that [my relative] is safe and looked after and go above and beyond for his needs”. The service concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedure and the actions they had to take if they saw people being at risk to abuse, commenting “I would immediately talk to the manager [if they had any concerns about people’s safety] and if the manager is not supportive, I would escalate and do the whistleblowing.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. The service ensured that people’s care was safe, supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them. A family member told us that staff were providing “a great quality of care and are very adaptable to [my relative’s] complex needs.” A healthcare professional also said, “All staff working with [name of a person] are able to manage the risks involved with [this person].” Care plans were robust and included details regarding the support people required to ensure their wellbeing. Potential risks to people’s safety were identified, assessed and mitigated making sure people were able to enjoy activities of their choosing when in the home or outside in the community.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of person-centred and safe care. The home felt welcoming and spacious, providing people with opportunities to move around freely. People’s bedrooms were personalised, and they kept their bedroom doors closed or open as they wished. However, during our visit we saw some construction materials and discarded items being stored in the rear garden, making the garden feel messy and uninviting. We shared these concerns with the registered manager which they addressed immediately making sure the garden was tidy and welcoming for people to use.

The staff team worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support and development. Staff were mostly up to date with their training, appraisals, supervisions and competency assessments. They had dates planned for overdue evaluations to be completed which were missed for reasons such as prioritisation of people’s care needs and staff’s leave. Safe staff recruitment processes were followed by the provider to ensure good care delivery for people.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.