Cherrycroft

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We assessed a total of 6 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was inadequate. At this assessment this key question has changed to good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most relatives told us they were involved in the assessment process. However, a relative told us, “There was no consistency, there is definitely room for improvement.” Another relative told us, “I have not seen the care plan and I have never been invited for a review.”

The registered manager told us people were fully assessed before they started using the service and this was regularly reviewed with them.

Before people started using the service their care and support needs were discussed with them and their relatives. A person-centred care package was then put in place and regularly reviewed. Staff had access to up-to-date information on people’s care in their care plans.

Most people and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care they received at Cherrycroft. A person told us, “The food is good, and I like what gets cooked.” However, a relative told us, “There are no menus in the dining room, so we don’t know what is being served. My [relative] was served cold food which was not very nice. There was also an occasion where they forgot to serve [relative] dinner as they didn’t realise they were at home.”

Staff knew people well and how they wished to be supported with food and drink. People were given options at mealtimes and were able to choose what they wanted to eat.

Assessments were in place to help staff recognise the support people required, and staff had undergone training to recognise if people were choking and how they could intervene. Where required the service worked with speech and language therapists to ensure people were receiving the correct support with their food and nutrition.

Most people were happy with the staff team supporting them. However, a relative told us, “I don’t feel information is communicated and shared they way it should be. I have on occasions asked for clarity and information hasn’t been passed on or investigated which is very frustrating.”

Staff had access to the information they needed to work with people, and where required helped them safely transition between healthcare teams. The registered manager told us they had developed good links with the health professionals. Where appropriate staff supported people to attend health appointments.

Healthcare professionals had raised some concerns about the service and did not initially find that actions were being taken to address them. However, additional processes were put in place by the service and the service are now working alongside local authority to drive improvements.

Staff meetings, daily meetings, and supervisions session were all in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people. The regional manager was aware of the communication barriers and had arranged additional training to address these concerns.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals to prevent deterioration and promote their independence. A relative told us, “Staff know how to care for [relative] and support them. They know how to meet [relative’s] healthcare needs.” However, another relative told us, “I don’t think they are meeting [relative’s] healthcare needs. There has been changes in [relatives] health and the staff don’t know how to manage this.”

Staff attended regular meetings to ensure they had all the information they needed to support people and involve them with their health. Staff completed referrals to health professionals such as the GP, dietician, the speech and language team and district nurses.

People’s records contained information about any health conditions and referrals people might need to promote good health. Staff received training to support them to recognise early signs and symptoms of deteriorating health. The regional manager told us some additional training was required for some staff and they recognised more support was needed.

A person told us staff regularly met with them to review their care and support needs and gain their feedback on the service. However, not all relatives shared this experience.

The registered manager told us they had several systems in place to help them monitor outcomes for people. This included asking people for their feedback through meetings and telephone calls and the completion of surveys on their care experience. However, survey results were not always analysed for themes and trends to see where improvements were needed and could be made.

The service was committed to improving outcomes for people and responded to concerns raised honestly and proactively. Additional action was taken to ensure monitoring records and care plans captured any changes to people’s health so relevant professionals could be contacted.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. People we spoke with told us they were able to make some informed choices. For example, the times they like to get up in the morning and go to bed, what clothes they like to wear, choice of meals and drinks and whether or not they choose to participate in social activities. One person told us, “There are times where I don’t want to get involved in the activities taking place, so I don’t have to get involved.”

Staff Had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves. Staff told us, “I have recently completed my training, and I understand the importance of gaining consent from the people I support.”

Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. People had capacity to make day-to-day decisions. We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the MCA 2005 framework.