• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Cherish Home Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

14 Chester Road, New Oscott, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, B73 5DA (0121) 354 5500

Provided and run by:
Cherish Home Care Ltd

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cherish Home Care Limited 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 Cherish Home Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

19 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Cherish Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. This service provides care and support to people living in their own homes individually located within the community. People may have a range of needs; from old age to a disability, impairment or mental health. The service supported 140 people when we inspected.

People’s experience of using this service: People continued to receive a good service. They were safe from harm. Safeguarding systems and appropriately trained staff supported this. People’s risks were safely managed. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed so that people's needs were met. People were safely supported with their medicines and keeping their homes clean.

Staff were trained, skilled and well supported by the management team. People had good relationships with the staff who protected their rights to lead as normal a life as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Everyone we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. People were respected, staff

championed their privacy and dignity and encouraged their independence in all aspects of life.

Staff were motivated to provide person-centred care based on people's choices and preferences. They were dedicated and praised for this by health and social care professionals. People were supported to do the things they wanted to. Any dissatisfaction in receiving the service was addressed and resolved.

People had the benefit of a service that was positive, inclusive and forward-looking. There was a registered manager and a management team who maintained checks on how well the service was provided. Documents held in the office were secure to ensure confidentiality of people's information.

The service continued to meet the characteristics of good in all areas.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good. (The last report was published 11 May 2016.)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

1 March 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 1 March 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 72 hours’ notice that we would be visiting. This was because the provider offers a supported service to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure that people and staff would be available to speak with us.

Cherish Home Care Services currently provides personal care for 156 people within their own home.

There was a registered manager in post 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.

Following our last inspection on the 18 and 23 June 2014, we found that the provider was compliant with the regulations we inspected.

We saw that people were kept safe by the staff who knew how to protect people and minimise the risk of abuse because the provider ensured that staff had received the training they needed to recognise and respond to the risk of abuse.

People were protected from the risk of harm because risks to people were assessed and the provider had put steps in place to minimise them.

People received flexible and responsive care because they were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.

People received their medicines at appropriate times and accurate records were maintained.

People felt they had good access to health care support when required and that staff responded to health care issues in a timely manner.

People and relatives we spoke with felt listened to by staff and that their requests were acted upon in a timely manner.

People felt that staff treated them with dignity and respect.

People and relatives were involved in the development of care plans and were able to express how they preferred to received care.

Staff were supportive in helping people to maintain their independence as far as was practicable.

There was a positive relationship between the people, relatives and the provider.

People and relatives were confident that the manager would respond positively to their requests and staff were happy working for the provider

Staff had regular supervision and appraisals and felt valued by the manager.

The provider had robust quality assurance and data management systems in place to ensure quality of service provision.

18, 23 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Before our visit we gave the provider notice of our visit forty eight hours before we visited the office. During our visit we conducted face to face interviews with seven staff, spoke with the manager and deputy manager and looked at care records. We spoke with nine people on the telephone following our visit. All the people we spoke with gave positive comments about the service provided. The methods we used enabled us to establish an overview of the experiences that people had to determine the standard of care provided and the satisfaction of the people who used the service. Our conversations with people helped us to answer our five questions we always ask.

Is the service safe?

All the people we spoke with told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them. One person told us, 'I have no problem with the carers, they are very kind and caring, I am happy with them.' Another person told us,'I have been with the agency for a while and I like the staff who come to me, they are very good.'

All the staff we spoke with confirmed that they had received training on how to protect people and understood what safeguarding people meant. In addition they received updated training when required.

We saw that people had an assessment of their needs and associated risks. A plan of care was completed which enabled staff to offer care and support to people in a safe way. Staff told us and records sampled showed that they had received training and support that enabled them to deliver care safely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which applies to care homes. This is a domiciliary service. No one using this service was subjected to an application to deprive them of their liberty. Staff spoken with understood about people making decisions and how to respect rights. For example, supporting people to make choices about their care.

All the people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received and would speak with the office staff if they had any concerns. All of the staff spoken with were able to tell us about the needs of the people they were supporting. One staff member told us, 'I have been with the same person for years so I know them really well. I love my ladies they are like family. I treat people like I would my own mom, that's the way it is.'

Is the care effective?

People spoken with told us and records sampled showed that they had been involved in an assessment of their needs and were able to tell staff what support they needed. This meant that people were able influence the care they received.

All staff spoken with were able to tell how they supported people and gave them choices about their care. All staff told us they asked people what they wanted at each call. People confirmed that staff always asked them what they wanted. All the people spoken with told us that they were supported by the same staff on most care calls which meant people received continuity of care from staff they felt comfortable with.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were happy with the care they received. We saw from daily records sampled that where staff had concerns about people's health, additional support was provided. For example other health care professionals were made aware and advice sought. One person told us, 'I think I get a good service, they (staff) mostly come on time, it is very rare they don't come, the office let me know If they are going to be late.' Another person told us, 'Sometimes at weekends the staff are a little late but I don't mind it's not often.' We saw that reviews of people's care needs were completed to ensure that the service provided to them met their needs.

Is the service responsive?

All of the people told us that staff did what they wanted them to do. They told us that if their care workers were going to be late they were kept informed either by the care staff or the office. One person told us, 'Sometimes they change without telling me, but this is now sorted because I told the office and now I have the same staff'

Records sampled showed that there were systems in place to gather the views of people so that the service was developed taking into consideration the views of staff and people who received a service. We saw that courtesy calls were made on a monthly basis. We saw where concerns or issues had been raised the manager investigated and responded to people with an outcome. This was confirmed by one person we spoke with who told us, 'If you phone the office they are very good in sorting things out'.

Is the service well led?

There is a registered manager in post who has day to day responsibility of the service provided. This meant staff should have the guidance and support to meet people's needs. We saw that reviews and courtesy telephone call and visit were made on a regular basis with people who used the service to gain their views about the service and make suggestions for improvement. All the people we spoke with told us that the manager and staff always listen. This meant the provider monitored the service and took people's views into consideration when making improvements.

4, 5 September 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit we looked at five people's care records. We spoke with the manager and four staff. Following our visit we spoke with nine people using the service, three relatives and three staff on the telephone.

All the people we spoke with told us that their needs were being met. One person told us, 'We were asked lots of questions about the help we wanted '. Another person told us, 'We are very happy with the carers. I have the same carers who come at the right time'.

We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. All staff spoken with told us they had the information they needed to care for people safely. This meant that staff were able to meet people's needs in a personalised way.

Staff were provided with training and supervision to ensure that they had up to date knowledge to enable them to care for people safely. Staff were clear about the action to take should they have any concerns about people using the service. This meant that people were provided with safe care by staff who felt supported and well trained.

There were systems in place to monitor the service provided. People knew how to raise concerns and their views were taken into account when the quality of the service was monitored.