Cherry Tree Cottage

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The service did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care

Clients told us they felt as though they were at the centre of their care. Client daily progress notes demonstrated that staff recorded client care in a person centred manner by documenting what their daily activities were, and evidenced conversations they had with them.

We reviewed 4 client records. All 4 management plans for alcohol detox were generic and lacked person-centred language. They had the same standardised wording, despite individual risks. This included lack of management for blood pressure for one client and lack of signs of deterioration for liver failure for another client. This meant that there was no individualised acknowledgement of their risks and clear direction for how to manage them if there were complications throughout detox.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service supported continuity of care through admission, detoxification, discharge and aftercare.

Family members of clients told us that the service supported their loved one to maintain contact with them and staff would provide updates when asked.

Clients had an option to participate in an aftercare programme, which involved 3 months of wellbeing checks, and they could visit the unit to take part in groups and therapies.

The service did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Carers of clients we spoke with told us they were kept informed throughout their loved ones’ treatment and that communication from the service was good.

The provider did not always provide notifications to external bodies as required. There was an absconding incident with police involvement in January 2026 that was not reported to the CQC in line with statutory requirements. Additionally, the registered manager told us about incidents whereby clients had to attend the local acute hospital during their admission, and we found these were also not reported to the CQC.

On admission, clients were given an information pack including contracts to sign that outlined expectations of engaging with the service. However, we were advised by a staff member that information was not always provided in an accessible format. Information was not always provided to clients in easy read formats or in alternative languages and clients were signposted elsewhere.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Staff encouraged clients to complete a feedback form on their discharge from the service. They were also given an information pack prior to admission outlining how they can make a complaint if needed. The service had an up-to-date complaints policy which had been recently reviewed and monitored complaints via a complaints log. The service held weekly community meetings which provided opportunity for clients receiving treatment to give feedback.

We reviewed 6 months of feedback from clients. It was evident that clients felt that having some staff with lived experience employed at the service improved their experience of care and that they felt more comfortable and understood by staff.

Feedback suggestions from clients included adding more entertainment options for the service as a few of them reported they felt bored at times during their treatment. Other feedback around the facility involved having firmer mattresses and a coffee machine. Another client suggested including more therapy. However, whilst we saw that clients gave feedback, we did not see any evidence of attempts to collate themes from feedback and act on these.

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

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility issues were met for example, allocating a bedroom on the ground floor.

There was adequate medical cover day and night and a doctor could attend the service quickly in an emergency. The service had 1 doctor who we were told was always available and supportive. There were agreements for cover for the doctor if they were to be on annual leave. The service used NHS services such as 111 and 999 when required.

Staff ensured clients had access to support post admission and aftercare was available for 3 months post-discharge.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. We saw examples of client views being received through complaint forms and post discharge feedback forms. Staff completed mandatory equality, diversity and discrimination training. Compliance for this was around 85% as 2 people had not yet completed this.

However, one of the staff members informed us that there is not a lot of provision in place at the service for clients who are non-English speaking or with other communication barriers, such as blindness/deafness or those with cognitive impairment. However, we felt assured that there were no clients on site at the time of the inspection who appeared to have any of these needs. We were told by the newly registered manager that the service can and have historically liaised with partner agencies if/when required to support clients who may have communication needs.

We were not assured that the provider undertook equality impact assessments to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported clients to create discharge plans that accounted for their needs, wishes and feelings. Discharge plans included elements such as triggers, ways to address them and ways to increase self-care. Clients were empowered and encouraged to apply what they had learned at the facility in these plans. Risk assessments were also completed on discharge, and mitigations were suggested to maintain progress such as finding sponsors and engaging with support networks. An analysis of needs including around housing and employment was completed and clients could be signposted to external agencies if required. However, we did not see evidence that families and carers were involved in discharge planning.

We were told by carers that the service keep contact with clients for check ins. We saw wellbeing records completed by the service that also evidenced aftercare provided post-discharge.