Cherry Care Services Limited - Northampton

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans contained information about people’s likes and dislikes and provided staff with guidance on how to support people in a way that reflected their wishes and routines. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and were able to describe how they tailored their approach to meet individual needs.

There were opportunities to further strengthen the person-centred information recorded within care plans. For example, more detail could be included about people’s interests, hobbies, personal histories and specific preferences, such as preferred toiletries or other aspects of their daily routines. Although these details were not always fully documented, staff knowledge and the care provided indicated that people’s individual preferences were understood and respected.

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

Staff told us there were enough staff available to provide support safely and effectively. This helped to ensure people received care at the times they needed it and that changes in their needs could be responded to appropriately.

People spoke positively about the reliability of the service. One person said staff are, “Always on time.” This helped to promote continuity of care and enabled people to maintain their daily routines. Staff described effective communication within the team, ensuring important information about people's care and support needs was shared appropriately.

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

One person with a sensory impairment told us that information was provided to them in an accessible format, helping them to understand and be involved in decisions about their care and support.

However, we did not see evidence that people with a learning disability were routinely provided with information in formats tailored to their needs. For example, care plans and other important information were not available in Easy Read or other accessible formats designed to support understanding. This meant the provider could not be assured that all people were able to access information in a way that promoted their involvement, choice and independence.

The provider recognised the importance of adapting communication to meet individual needs, but further work was required to ensure accessible information was consistently available for everyone who may benefit from it.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were encouraged and supported to share their views about the care and support they received. People told us they were regularly asked for feedback about their care and felt able to express their opinions. This helped the provider to understand people's experiences and identify whether any changes or improvements were needed.

We saw evidence that a satisfaction survey had been completed earlier this year. The provider had analysed the feedback received to identify achievements and any learning opportunities. All feedback received was positive, indicating people were satisfied with the service they received. This demonstrated that the provider sought feedback from people and used this information to monitor the quality of the service.

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

There was no evidence to suggest that people experienced barriers to accessing care and support, and no concerns were identified in relation to equality, diversity or inclusion.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to delivering care in a fair and inclusive way. People received support based on their individual needs, and there was no indication that anyone was disadvantaged in accessing the service because of their age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership status, or pregnancy and maternity.

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.

Where people had communication difficulties, there was limited evidence of them being actively enabled to participate in the development and review of their care plans. Whilst staff knew people well, records did not consistently demonstrate how people’s views, wishes and preferences had been sought and incorporated where communication support may be required.

We found that support planning often relied heavily on the views and decisions of relatives. In some cases, relatives did not have the legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the person. This meant the provider could not be assured that decisions were always being made in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or that people were being supported to be as involved as possible in decisions affecting their lives.

Although the provider recognised the importance of involving people and their families in care planning, further work was needed to ensure appropriate communication support, decision-making processes and recording arrangements were in place to promote equitable involvement, experiences and outcomes for all people using the service.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s wishes and preferences in relation to end-of-life care had been considered and documented where appropriate. This helped to ensure staff were aware of how people wanted to be supported during this stage of their lives.

However, there was limited evidence of planning for other significant changes that could affect people’s future care and support arrangements. For example, where people lived with family members who played a key role in meeting their needs, care records did not consistently demonstrate consideration of what support may be required if those relatives were no longer able to provide care or support in the future.

This meant people and those important to them may not always have been supported to plan proactively for potential changes in their circumstances. The provider should strengthen future planning arrangements to ensure people’s longer-term needs, wishes and support requirements are considered and documented, helping to promote continuity of care and positive outcomes.