Cherry Tree Cottage

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff demonstrated caring attitudes and behaviours. We observed positive interactions between staff and clients.

We spoke with 2 carers of clients who had recently used the service. They stated that the staff were caring. One carer told us, “You can tell this is more than just their job”, and that their loved one gave good feedback of the service they received. The other carer told us that their partner spoke very highly of the service, and that the staff don’t let judgements get in the way of caring.

We were told about the aftercare programme, which included clients returning to the service to participate in some of the classes such as meditation or art.

We spoke with the clients on site and reviewed the feedback forms from previous clients. This feedback noted that staff were kind, considerate and professional. Clients were particularly complimentary about the chef’s cooking.

We were told by staff that if clients were not appropriate for the service, that they were signposted to other services. Staff also told us they could speak up about concerns of client care if they felt this was required.

Staff communicated regarding client care such as medication and admissions via a WhatsApp group. We were informed that support workers and senior staff have work phones for this, but that recovery workers did not have work phones and used personal phones, therefore we could not be assured that client confidentiality was always maintained. We were also not assured of a formal policy in place for this.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service adjusted for disabled clients as it had a bedroom on the ground floor with ramp access.

The service ensured they took people’s personal situations into account, including their families. We saw a feedback form from a client who said the service “made special arrangements” due to their daughters’ additional needs and staff worked with another clients’ family to help them understand addiction. Staff acknowledged cultural and spiritual needs of clients, for example providing halal meat for Muslim clients and supporting clients to attend church.

Client feedback forms noted that the unit felt homely and staff were available 24/7. One client thanked staff for helping them get their life back, and another said that they had felt listened to for the first time in 30 years.

Staff supported clients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families and carers, including visits which they could leave the facility for if they wished. Carers we spoke to were complimentary of the communication of the staff.

Staff supported clients to attend substance use recovery meetings in the community.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service took self-referrals, so clients chose to be there and could leave whenever they wanted. Clients agreed to sign paperwork that stated they would have their phone taken away. However, they were still supported to maintain contact with their families.

Clients reported in their feedback forms that they could request different meals if they wished to.

Staff supported clients’ independence and choice by escorting them to the shop to get their own snacks if they needed to, or to go to external substance misuse groups and meetings.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Client feedback suggested that staff responded to people’s needs, and their questions and queries were addressed when required.

We saw an example of a client reporting toothache and staff contacting the doctor, who advised a dental appointment should be made. The appointment was made that day, but for 3 days later due to dentist availability. Staff offered to try and get an earlier appointment, however, the client declined and wanted to keep the appointment as it was. The client was able to request pain relief in the run up to the appointment and they were prescribed antibiotics after this, which the staff supported them to take.

Staff told us that the prescribing doctor was available and responsive to any concerns they had.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All staff we spoke to felt positive about their roles and told us they felt valued, appreciated and supported as part of the team at Cherry Tree Cottage. We saw individual staff being complimented on multiple occasions within client feedback.

We saw that staff had used the service previously for their own journey and then worked for the service when they had completed their treatment. Staff also told us that they supported each other on an informal basis.

Staff sickness was not a concern in the service.