Cherrycroft

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 service met people's needs. We assessed a total of 7 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 requires improvement. At this assessment this key question has changed to good. This meant people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people and relatives told us they were happy with the service they received. A person told us, “I like it here and I feel very well looked after. There is a lot to do activity wise and the staff are very caring. I can go out whenever I want to.” However, a relative told us, “There may look like there is a lot going on but there really isn’t. There always used to be so much happening that I wouldn’t want to leave but I don’t feel like that anymore.”

Staff told us they knew people well and had access to all the information they needed to provide support to people.

We observed staff delivering care to people in a way they wanted it.

The registered manager told us they were working closely with other professionals to ensure a co-ordinated approach was taken in relation to people’s healthcare needs.

We received positive feedback from partners.

The management had made good links with the local mental health team, palliative, social workers and community facilities to support people with access to care.

Most Relatives told us they received information about the service prior to admission and their communication needs were considered. A relative told us, “I had long conversations with the manager when my family member moved in, and I get regular updates from the senior.” However, another relative told us, “I don’t feel information is always shared in a timely manner and I don’t think my [relative’s] healthcare needs are being met. Staff do not necessarily share information with management, so communication is not consistent.”

The registered manager told us they were able to provide information in various formats on request. Staff knew how to support people with visual impairment and how to communicate effectively with people.

Care plans recorded people’s communication needs and how staff should support them.

Relative’s gave mixed feedback with how their complaints were dealt with by the service. Some relative’s felt complaints had not been resolved; others told us if they did have a complaint they would talk to management.

Staff were able to support people to give feedback on the care they received, or people could give feedback independently if they wished.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to ensure people had equity in experience and outcomes. Systems were in place to gain feedback from people and relatives. The registered manager carried out surveys with people and relatives. Actions following these surveys were discussed however, these discussions were not always documented. There were regular meetings held for staff to share their views and experiences and for the registered manager to cascade information about things happening in the service. There was a complaints policy where the registered manager investigated concerns and took action to resolve these.

Most people and relatives told us they had access to all the services they needed. A relative told us, “They are very proactive in getting support.” Another relative said, “The staff are well aware of [family members] healthcare needs and have promptly called in help, for example, from other health professionals when required.” However, we did receive feedback from a relative where they were concerned about a person’s behavioural changes and felt their relative was not getting the support they required.

The registered manager told us regular meetings were held with all staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them.

Most people and relatives told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice, nurses, opticians and dentists. People told us they felt involved and listened to at the service. However, a relative told us they felt their relatives’ recent behavioural changes had not been met or addressed. Management told us they are inviting relatives to attend reviews to discuss improving outcomes for people.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Acknowledging diversity and valuing differences. Staff told us they felt well supported by their colleagues and the registered manager. Staff were happy in their role which created a pleasant atmosphere at the service, impacting on the support people received. A staff member told us, “The manager is approachable. The manager has created a positive atmosphere in the home, and we are all working hard together to make the improvements we need to make. Staff spoken with confirmed they had not witnessed or experienced any occasions whereby they had felt any of the people using the service were discriminated against, or they had witnessed people not having their basic human rights met. For example, when people received healthcare support from healthcare professionals and services.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice. The service had responded to concerns from partner agencies and CQC. They told us they were working more closely with senior staff and had put in additional training to ensure staff were able to monitor people’s health conditions and outcomes closely.

People and relatives were not always consulted about any future plans. We found limited information in people’s care records relating to people’s future plans.

The staff training matrix indicated staff had not undertaken any training in end of life care.

The registered manager told us they would access support from the GP, district nurses or community hospice services, if needed.