CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Garth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visitor arrangements, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and clean, well-maintained surroundings.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors gave the home 24 hours' notice and looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had screening arrangements for visitors, including checking vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test. Staff had access to personal protective equipment, and people living in the home and staff were tested in line with guidance.
Inspectors found the home clean, well maintained and free from odours. They were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning, infection outbreaks and its infection control policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened before entering, including checks of vaccination evidence and a negative lateral flow test.
“All visitors were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of Covid-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had training in infection prevention and control and PPE. PPE supplies were available, and testing arrangements were in place.
“All staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, maintained and free from odours, with cleaning schedules in place.
“The care home was clean, well maintained and odour-free. There were cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Up-to-date systems
The home had current infection control policies and audits, including arrangements relating to coronavirus.
“Policies and audits relating to infection prevention control, including coronavirus were up-to-date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the visitor screening and visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 18 January 2022?
- 02How do you currently manage COVID-19 or other infection risks among residents, staff and visitors?
- 03Are staff still trained in infection prevention and control and the safe use of PPE?
- 04How do you check that cleaning schedules, infection control policies and audits are being followed?
- 05What arrangements are in place now if COVID-19 causes staff shortages?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and it did not assess the other care quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2022 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, June 2018
Cherry Garth was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring support, with some records and risk checks needing attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 4 April 2018. They spoke with the person using the home, one staff member and the registered manager. They also looked around the home and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that the person felt safe, had consistent support and was involved in decisions about their care, activities and daily life.
The previous inspection in February 2017 found legal shortfalls in medicines, staff support and training, and management checks. At this inspection, inspectors found these improvements had been made and the home was meeting the legal requirements.
Respectful, personal care
The person was involved in decisions and staff respected their privacy, dignity and wishes.
“Care planning and risk assessment was focused on the person and ensured their needs were identified and met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered correctly, records were complete and checks found the stock was correct.
“At this inspection we found medicines were managed safely and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Consistent staffing
The person had regular staff and said there were enough workers to support them during the day and night.
“Staffing arrangements ensured the person received appropriate support from consistent workers.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had introduced audits and other checks, and inspectors found the previous management concerns had been addressed.
“At this inspection we found governance arrangements were in place and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Community risk assessment
needs fixingA potential risk connected with accessing the community was not properly assessed when inspectors visited. The manager later said this had been reviewed with other professionals.
“Although risk assessments covered key areas such as finances and medicines, we found a potential risk when accessing the community was not properly assessed.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingAll staff had supervision, but not always at the frequency set out in the provider's own agreement. The manager said a tracking system and revised guidance would be introduced.
“All staff had received supervision but this was not always as often as the provider's supervision agreement stated.” from the report
Care plan records
minorSome care plan sections had not been signed. Daily living skills were also not included, so the manager agreed to review how independence was recorded.
“Not all sections of the care plan were signed.” from the report
- 01How do you currently assess and manage risks when a resident goes into the community?
- 02How do you track staff supervision and make sure it happens at the agreed frequency?
- 03How are care plans checked to ensure every section is agreed and signed?
- 04How do you record and support a resident's daily living skills and independence?
- 05What improvements were made after the previous inspection, and how are they checked now?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; one person was using the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2018 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 Garth
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 July 2015.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.