CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Blossom
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home needed to improve care plan reviews and management oversight.
The inspection visit took place on 29 April 2021. One inspector visited the home, and an Expert by Experience spoke with relatives by telephone the next day. Inspectors also spoke with people, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, incidents, staffing, complaints, infection control and quality checks.
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines. Staff were trained, people's health needs were supported, and people were helped to make choices, keep relationships and take part in activities.
The main weakness was leadership and record keeping. Care plan reviews did not consistently involve people, relatives or legal representatives, and plans were not always signed. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer breaching regulations, but inspectors still rated well-led as Requires Improvement.
The overall Good rating means the inspection found good care across most areas. It does not mean everything was perfect, particularly the way care planning and people's involvement were managed.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People were supported by a team of staff who were kind, caring and considerate.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, both at home and in the community. Staff also helped people keep in contact with relatives during the pandemic.
“People were supported by staff to take part in activities that they chose, both within the home and in the community.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingReviews did not consistently show that people, relatives or legal representatives had been involved. The registered manager said a structured review programme would be introduced.
“We found care plan reviews lacked involvement from people, their relatives and legal representatives.” from the report
Missing signatures and representative details
needs fixingCare and support plans were not always signed by people, relatives or representatives. For people who lacked capacity, the legal representative was not always recorded consistently.
“We also found care and support plans were not signed by people, their relatives and representatives.” from the report
- 01How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will they and the family be involved?
- 02How will you record my relative's consent and obtain signatures from them or their legal representative?
- 03If my relative lacks capacity, how will you record who their legal representative is?
- 04What changes have been made since the inspection to address the Requires Improvement rating for well-led?
- 05How do you check that care plans remain accurate when my relative's needs or routines change?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions and included infection prevention and control; the previous inspection on 18 November 2020 was not rated and found multiple breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; Safe and Well-led were Inadequate, and the home was placed in special measures.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It followed concerns about safeguarding, restraint and the care provided. Inspectors visited on three dates, spoke with staff, a relative and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found serious problems with the use and recording of restraint. Records did not always show how long restraint lasted or what less restrictive steps had been tried. Fire safety risks had not been dealt with, and some recruitment checks were missing.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff numbers were considered sufficient, and the home was clean. However, care plans and daily routines were not always updated, including to reflect the effect of COVID-19 restrictions.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led. The overall service was not given a rating because this was a focused inspection. The home was placed in special measures, meaning CQC would keep it under review and re-inspect it.
Medicines
Records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had medicines training and their practice was checked.
“A review of the records confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing levels
Staff and a relative said there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors' observations supported this.
“Staff and relatives told us sufficient staff were on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
Staff were using protective equipment and following extra cleaning measures linked to COVID-19. Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained.
“We observed the home to be clean and well maintained.” from the report
Work with outside professionals
The provider and manager had regular contact with the local authority during the pandemic.
“This evidenced partnership working between the home and external professionals to enable positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Use of restraint
seriousRestraint records did not always explain its duration, the de-escalation used beforehand or staff positions. Managers did not consistently review or analyse incidents to check that restraint was proportionate.
“This meant it was not clear and transparent if the restraint used was the least restrictive and for the shortest possible time.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousA fire risk assessment had identified that several doors needed self-closing devices, but this had not been done by the inspection. The provider said the devices were fitted one week afterwards.
“This placed people at potential risk of harm in the event of a fire.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousOne staff file did not show a DBS check, references or a risk assessment while checks were outstanding. Employment history gaps had not been explored for either of the two files reviewed.
“This meant recruitment processes were not effective in ensuring staff were suitable for the roles prior to employment.” from the report
Care plans and routines
seriousSupport plans and routines were not always updated to reflect people's current needs or the effect of COVID-19 restrictions. Alternative activities had not always been planned with people.
“People's support plans, and routines had not been updated to take into consideration the impact COVID19 had on people due to the restrictions in place.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and monitoring systems had not found or addressed important problems. The service had also not had a registered manager since December 2019.
“The lack of governance systems and oversight meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care.” from the report
- 01How are restraint incidents now recorded, reviewed and analysed, and how do you check that restraint is used only when necessary?
- 02Have all DBS checks, references and employment history checks been completed for current staff?
- 03Have all fire safety recommendations, including self-closing devices on fire doors, been completed and checked?
- 04How are care plans and daily routines updated when people's needs or circumstances change?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management, and how are the CQC registration conditions and improvement actions being monitored?
This was a focused inspection prompted by safeguarding, restraint and care concerns; CQC inspected Safe and Well-led, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Cherry Blossom
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 April 2019.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.