When we visited Cherry Tree Lodge there were 18 people living at the home. We spoke with four people and observed how others were cared for. This was because some people had different ways of communicating and could not tell us directly about their experiences of the care they received. We also spoke with a representative of the provider, the manager and three staff members. We did not see any visitors to the service during our visit.In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.
A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence supporting the summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were cared for by staff who were trained and supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
Where people could not make decisions for themselves we saw there was a system in place to make sure any decisions would be made in their best interests.
The manager told us no applications had been needed or made by the home to restrict anyone's liberty in any way. This would usually be done to protect the person or others under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. This meant that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines.
There were up to date arrangements in place deal with emergencies such as the failure of essential services such as gas or electricity and fire or flooding. This meant that people could be confident that their accommodation and care needs would be reliably met.
Is the service effective?
Each person has a plan of care in place which set out the support they needed and wanted. Records showed care plans were reviewed and amended when people's needs changed.
Staff demonstrated they knew about people's needs, wishes and preferences in detail and we saw they provided the support and care that was set out in people's plans.
Records showed people received support with their healthcare needs from a range of professionals such as doctors, dieticians, opticians, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Records also showed people had access to specialist behaviour services and occupational therapy services
Throughout the visit we observed staff supported people to manage challenging behaviours in an effective and respectful manner. We saw people calmed quickly and were able to continue with their usual daily routines.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff communicated with people using their preferred methods and in a friendly and respectful manner.
We also saw that people responded positively to staff and they appeared comfortable and relaxed in their company. Staff provided care and support in an unhurried and timely way.
People we spoke with said things like, 'I love the staff, they're nice to me' and 'Look they're always working; always helping us; this is my home.'
Is the service responsive?
We asked people what they would do if they were unhappy with anything in their home. One person said, 'I tell the staff and they sort it out for me.'
Two complaints about the service had been received since January 2014. Records showed both complaints had been managed in line with their policy. We saw the manager and provider had used the outcomes of the complaints to make changes to the way, for example, medications were managed. We also saw the provider had shared the lessons they learned with other services within their organisation.
Is the service well-led?
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.
We saw people who lived in the home were encouraged to express their views about the way things were done by way of meetings and surveys. The views of visitors to the home were also sought through surveys. We saw the provider used this information to make changes to the way the service operated.
Staff told us they felt able to raise issues with the provider and manager, and felt they were listened to. They told us they received regular supervision which helped them plan their development within their work role. One staff member said the manager was, 'Brilliant.'