CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious gaps in safeguarding, risk management and leadership despite kind staff and safe medicines handling.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 19 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with 9 people, 1 relative and staff, observed care, checked 5 care records and medicines records, and reviewed training, incidents, accidents and audits.
The home was not safe. Abuse concerns had not always been reported, risks such as falls, choking, diabetes and distress were not fully assessed, and records did not show that staffing was enough for an emergency evacuation. Infection control and some food and drink monitoring also needed improvement.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Consent records and best-interest decisions were not always in place. Referrals to specialist teams were sometimes delayed, and food, drink and health records were not always complete.
The home was rated Inadequate overall and for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found six breaches of regulation. The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2018. The home is in special measures, with conditions on its registration and further monitoring.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw caring interactions. People and relatives generally felt comfortable with staff, who knew people well.
“We observed caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff who gave medicines had training and competency checks.
“There were systems in place for the safe storage, administration and management of medicines.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home carried out suitable recruitment checks, including DBS checks.
“Staff were recruited safely and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) were in place.” from the report
Visiting
There were no restrictions on visiting, and relatives said they could visit as they wished.
“There were no restrictions on visiting and the provider was working within current government guidance.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousSome incidents that indicated abuse had occurred were not reported to the local safeguarding team. Staff were not consistently clear about their responsibilities to report abuse.
“The local safeguarding team had not been made aware of a number of incidents.” from the report
Unmanaged risks
seriousCare records did not fully explain how to manage risks including falls, choking, diabetes and periods of distress. Emergency evacuation arrangements had not been properly tested against the staffing available at night.
“The risks to people's health, safety and welfare had not always been assessed.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits were mainly tick-box checks and did not show what had been reviewed or learned. The provider did not reliably use incidents and accidents to improve care.
“Systems and processes did not effectively monitor quality or keep people safe.” from the report
Food and drink monitoring
needs fixingFood and fluid records did not always show what people had eaten or drunk, including snacks intended to support weight gain. This meant the home could not demonstrate that people were sufficiently hydrated.
“The provider could not demonstrate people were sufficiently hydrated as records were not complete.” from the report
- 01What safeguarding incidents have been reported to the local authority and the CQC since this inspection?
- 02How have you checked that staffing levels are enough for an emergency evacuation, especially at night?
- 03Can you show how risks relating to falls, choking, diabetes and distress are now assessed and reviewed?
- 04How are you checking that staff understand and apply safeguarding, risk assessment and Mental Capacity Act training?
- 05How do you now record and monitor people's food, fluid and snack intake?
This inspection examined Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated, and the previous ratings changed from Good to Inadequate for Safe and Well-led and to Requires Improvement for Effective. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2024 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, March 2021
Cherry Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 controls but some PPE, policy and laundry practices needed improvement.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 4 March 2021. The inspectors checked infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic. The home had 26 people living there and could accommodate up to 27.
The inspectors were assured that visitors, admissions, testing, shielding and social distancing were managed safely. People and staff were tested regularly. Visitors were tested, given protective equipment and escorted through the building. People were also supported to keep in touch with relatives by telephone, video calls and window visits.
Some areas were only partly satisfactory. Two staff members handled their masks without washing their hands, some infection control policies and audits needed updating, and some clinical waste bins and laundry procedures needed improvement. The overall service and Safe question were inspected but not rated.
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly. Visitors were also tested with rapid lateral flow tests.
“People living in the home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19 at the intervals stipulated by government guidelines.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visits were booked and spaced out. Visitors were given protective equipment and escorted so they did not enter other areas of the home.
“Visitors were also provided with appropriate personal protective equipment, including a surgical face mask, gloves and an apron.” from the report
Protective equipment supplies
The home had taken steps to secure good stocks of personal protective equipment.
“The service was proactive in securing good stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Mask handling
seriousTwo staff members pulled down their masks to drink and then put them back without washing their hands. Inspectors said this increased the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
“They did not wash their hands after touching their mask. This increases the risk of COVID-19 transmission.” from the report
Policies and audits
needs fixingSome infection control and COVID-19 policies were not up to date. Audits were not identifying all areas that needed improvement.
“These needed bringing up to date to ensure people who lived at the service were not at risk.” from the report
Waste and laundry
needs fixingSome clinical waste bins needed replacing, and laundry procedures did not always prevent cross-contamination.
“Some clinical waste bins needed to be replaced, and laundry procedures did not always ensure the mitigation of cross contamination.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure staff wash their hands after touching or adjusting masks?
- 02When were the infection control and COVID-19 policies last updated?
- 03How often are infection control audits now carried out, and how are problems followed up?
- 04Have all the clinical waste bins been replaced?
- 05What changes have been made to laundry procedures to prevent cross-contamination?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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.
Every inspection of Cherry Lodge
4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- April 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.