You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

Cherry Trees is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Cherry Trees is registered to provide accommodation for up to 89 older people. Accommodation is provided over three floors, accessed by a passenger lift. Communal lounges and dining areas are provided. On the day of the inspection there were 76 people living in the home.

Our last inspection at Cherry Trees took place in 16 October 2016. At that inspection, we found five breaches in the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were breaches in Regulation 9; Person centred care, Regulation 17; Good governance, Regulation 18; Staffing, Regulation 11; Need for consent and Regulation 14; Meeting nutritional and Hydration needs. Following the last inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan detailing how they were going to make improvements.

At this inspection, we checked improvements the registered provider had made. We found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the requirements of these Regulations.

This inspection took place on 3 April 2018 and was unannounced. The meant the people who lived at the home and the staff did not know we would be visiting.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about people living at the home and understood how to meet their diverse needs.

We observed warmth and affection between staff and people who used the service. We saw people were treated with dignity and respect.

People told us they felt safe at Cherry Trees and staff told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager. Systems and processes were in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and improper treatment.

We found the home was clean and odour free. Bedrooms had been personalised and communal areas were comfortably furnished. The home was well maintained and equipment had been serviced to make sure it was safe to use. However some areas of the service were not adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

We have made a recommendation that the service considers current best practice guidance on dementia friendly environments.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.

Wherever possible, people were involved in decisions about their care and were offered choices. People told us they, and their relatives, had been involved in their plan of care and had participated in regular reviews.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health was looked after.

People were supported to take part in a variety of activities.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account dietary needs and preferences so people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies in the service support this practice. However, we found improvements could be made to in the recording of peoples consent in care records

We have made a recommendation about staff training on Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the D

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was safe.

Peoples risk assessments were up to date and addressed all the areas where people were vulnerable to risk.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection procedures in place.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was effective.

People told us they liked the food served at Cherry Trees. People were offered a choice of nutritious meals and their health in relation to nutrition and hydration was well monitored.

The service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) guidelines. However, improvements were required in the recording of consent.

Staff had received sufficient training to have the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was caring.

We observed interactions from care staff that were kind, sensitive and respectful towards people. We saw people laughing and smiling with staff members.

People who used the service told us they were supported to maintain contact with their relatives and/or friends. There were no restrictions on visiting.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Where people’s needs changed, the registered provider took action to ensure that their changing needs were assessed and care was adapted accordingly.

The service had an effective system in place to handle and respond to any complaints.

Prior to moving into Cherry Trees, pre-admission assessment was undertaken to assess if Cherry Trees could meet the needs of people being referred to the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 May 2018

The service was well led.

The new manager was organised and had a clear oversight of the home. They had developed action plans to help them systematically address and evidence the improvements they were making.

There was a strong person- centred culture within the home. The registered manager had clear visions, values and enthusiasm about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared with the whole staff team.

Surveys were sent out to service users, relatives and staff members to obtain feedback on the service.