Cherrycroft

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We assessed a total of 8 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 were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 felt confident speaking with staff at the service if they had any concerns. A relative told us, “I can talk to the manager whenever I need to, and I don’t have to think twice before raising a concern.”

There was a strong learning culture at the service. Staff were supported with their personal development and learning. The registered manager shared learning with staff from incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding so that the service could continually improve and develop positive outcomes for people.

The management team recognised there had been communication issues with some relatives whereby information was not always shared in a timely manner. Following the onsite assessment, the regional manager had recently arranged a meeting to discuss improving communication and exchanges of information to support the people they were caring for. There were systems in place to record incidents and accidents which were reported by staff. The registered manager reviewed incidents to identify where actions. However, there was no formal record of lessons learnt following accidents and incidents. The regional manager completed a monthly audit for accidents and incidents but these were not analysed for themes and trends.

Most relatives told us they were happy with their transition and admission to the service. A relative told us, “The transition was seamless, a breath of fresh air. We had a very positive experience.” However, another relative told us, “We didn’t have the best transition. There was no consistency between management and staff in the home.”

Staff told us they read through the care plans to ensure they had all the information they needed to provide support safely.

We received positive feedback from partners. A health professional told us, "The service are working hard to drive improvements."

Management told us they would carry out an initial assessment when taking on any new packages. During this assessment support needs were identified, and a care plan and risk assessment put in place for staff to follow.

People and relatives overall were positive about their safety at Cherrycroft. A person told us, “I feel very safe living here. They all know how to look after me.” However, another relative told us, “Whilst I think [relative] is safe living there, I don’t know if [relative] is properly cared for. I don't feel like staff know how to meet [relative's] healthcare needs. I have discussed this with the manager and a meeting has been arranged.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and knew how to raise any concerns with management or external agencies. A member of staff told us, “I’ve had my training, and I would know how to report any concerns. I would escalate concerns if I needed to.”

During the inspection, we observed staff responded to support people promptly. Staff supported people to move safely using assessed equipment where required.

The registered manager told us they had safeguarding policies and procedures in place and had a clear approach for ‘whistle blowing’. During staff meetings and staff supervision meetings safeguarding was discussed with staff to ensure staff knew how to safeguard people and how important this was to their role. The registered manager had raised safeguarding concerns appropriately and had worked with the local authority to investigate these to ensure people were being safeguarded.

Most people and relatives told us they were involved with risks associated with people’s care and support. Care plan and risk assessments were person centred and aim to provide positive outcomes for people whilst maintaining their choice and independence. A relative told us “Staff completed an initial assessment of [relative’s] needs when the package first started, and the care package is now reviewed regularly.” However, another relative told us, “I have never seen the care plan even though I have asked for it multiple times.”

Staff told us they were updated regularly about the risks associated with people’s care and support. They told us management updated them and various meetings were in place to keep them updated. The registered manager told us they actively sought people and relatives’ views and supported people and positive risk taking was encouraged.

During the onsite assessment we observed staff supporting people with their mobility safely. There were minimal restrictions on people’s freedom of movement, and we observed people moving around freely and accessing outside areas. Doors to garden areas were accessible to people.

When people first start using the service, they are assessed by a manager and a discussion on risks is documented in people’s care plans. Risk assessments are completed to mitigate the risks. The registered manager told us that they do not commence any care package until the initial assessment is completed.

People were cared for in safe environments that were designed to meet their needs. A relative told us, “[Relative] is living in a safe environment. I have no concerns.” People and relatives were positive about the environment. People and relatives were happy with the facilities they had available. However, a relative told us, “They have a big room at the back of the garden that could be used more often and the bowling alley in the garden needs some attention. That never gets used and it’s a shame as I’m sure if the weather was nice, it would get used.”

The regional manager and registered manager had oversight in relation to all aspects of environmental safety.

Throughout the inspection we observed the environment to be safe including safe use of equipment. However, some concerns had been raised about a fire door in the kitchen not being accessible which could pose a fire risk to people using the kitchen. Following the onsite visit, the regional manager told us they had placed an order for a new fire door and had made the existing door accessible.

The environment was purpose built to meet the needs of people living there. Maintenance staff were employed to ensure the premises were well-maintained and safe. There were systems in place to ensure any maintenance needed was responded to promptly. Records of checks were up to date which had been carried out on equipment and the premises. The inaccessible kitchen fire door had been identified in an audit in September by the deputy manager. However, there was no evidence in the audit that it had been addressed by management.

People and relatives were mainly positive about the staff support they received and told us there were enough suitably qualified staff to support them. A person told us, “I like the staff here, they know what they are doing. They don’t make me wait around.” A relative told us, “There are a lot of staff, a lot of newer ones but there’s always someone around to support [relative].” However, we did receive feedback from some relatives who told us, on some occasions there seemed to be less staff than usual, so the consistency of staffing and deployment of staff required more attention. Another relative told us, “The staff are almost as bored as the relatives, the staff aren’t very confident and don’t always know what they are doing.” Another relative told us, “Staff absolutely don’t have the skills they need to support [relative].

Staff told us they were very happy working at the service and with the support they received from the management team. A member of staff told us, “I really enjoy working here, I feel like I have the right skills I need to do my job and if I ever feel like I need more training, I can always ask, and the manager will arrange it.”

On the day of the assessment, we observed there to be sufficient staff on duty. Throughout the visit, we observed staff were attentive to people’s needs and responded quickly to requests for support.

New staff had a full 90 day induction which included face to face training and shadowing more experienced staff. Staff were supported with supervision meetings and spot checks of their performance. The registered manager was supportive of staff developing their skills with nationally recognised qualifications and sourced external training for staff to enhance their skills. Appropriate checks were in place before staff started work including providing full work histories, references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People and relatives were positive about the cleanliness in the service and told us there were no restrictions on visiting.

Staff confirmed they received infection prevention and control (IPC) training and felt confident to support people with their personal care. However, not all staff had completed their training as per the services training matrix. We were informed by all staff we spoke with that there was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff had personal protection equipment situated throughout the service giving them easy access to wear when needed. The service was clean and tidy with no odours and people commented on how clean they found the service.

Infection prevention and control processes were in place and seen to be followed. Staff had received training and were aware of the policies and procedures in place.

People and relatives did not have any concerns with how their medicines were administered. People were given their medicines safely and as prescribed, and it was recorded on their medicine administration record (MAR).

Staff had received training in managing medicines and had their competency to do so checked. A member of staff told us, “I had my medicines training, and my manager carried out observations and checked my competency.”

People had care plans and risk assessments in place which detailed what medicines they were prescribed and how they liked to be supported. Protocols were in place for medicines which were given as and when needed, such as pain relief medicines. This provided staff with information about the dosage and reasons for administering. The registered manager had a medicine management policy in place for staff to follow and all staff received training. Medicines were stored securely and within the appropriate temperature range. Management completed monthly audits of people's medicines. There was a robust system in place to identify any shortfalls and to ensure people received their medicines safely.