CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Cherry Tree Care Home was rated Requires Improvement because medicines and risk records were not reliable, although staffing and people's experience of care were positive.
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by safeguarding concerns and the time since the previous inspection. One inspector visited on 31 January and 3 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals, observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
Inspectors found problems with medicines records and could not be sure people always received medicines as prescribed. Care plans and risk assessments did not consistently explain how to manage risks such as pressure injuries, constipation and falls. The home's checks had not always found these problems.
There were also positive findings. People said they felt safe and relatives described staff as kind and responsive. Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, infection control and the management of environmental risks were satisfactory. The overall rating changed from Good in 2019 to Requires Improvement.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had been completed before the two staff files reviewed were employed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about staff. Inspectors observed a calm atmosphere and staff who knew people well.
“Throughout the inspection we observed a relaxed atmosphere in the home and staff supported people, in a calm, respectful way.” from the report
Safeguarding and infection control
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report abuse. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures and policies were in place.
“Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse.” from the report
Choice and least restrictive support
The report says the home supported people to make choices and acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome medicines administration records were not signed, medicine totals did not always match the records, and some handwritten records lacked a second check. Topical medicines were not always labelled or recorded properly.
“We could not be assured people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risk assessments and care plans
seriousCare records did not give clear and consistent guidance about risks including pressure injuries, constipation and falls. This meant staff might not have had the information needed to reduce these risks.
“Care records did not provide clear and consistent information in relation to people's needs and abilities.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits had not identified all the problems found during the inspection. Incident records were not detailed enough to show clearly what had been done to prevent problems happening again.
“Some quality monitoring systems and processes were in place however; these had not always been effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to check that every medicine dose is recorded and that medicine totals match the records?
- 02How are handwritten medicines records checked and double-signed before they are used?
- 03How do care plans now explain support for people at risk of pressure injuries, constipation or falls?
- 04How do you review accidents and falls to identify patterns and prevent them happening again?
- 05What action plan did you send to CQC, and what improvements have been completed since the inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2023 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
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had strong infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors visited the home on 4 March 2021. This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control, rather than the full range of care quality.
Inspectors were assured about visitor screening, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and hand hygiene. They also found safe arrangements for new admissions and people returning from hospital.
The home supported safe visiting, including visits in a screened garden pod and exceptional visits at the end of life. Inspectors found enough staff to provide continuity of support. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had cleaning schedules, protective equipment, staff training and regular checks on hygiene, distancing and protective equipment use.
“Staff kept detailed records of their cleaning schedules, which included a rolling program of continuously cleaning high touch surfaces” from the report
Testing and admissions
People and staff were tested regularly. New admissions and people returning from hospital were tested and isolated for 14 days.
“All new admissions were expected to provide recent COVID-19 test results, were further tested by the service following admission and isolated upon arrival for 14 days” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home provided a screened visiting pod and supported exceptional visits, including visits for people receiving end of life care.
“A visiting pod had been placed in the garden of the service. This had substantial screening and allowed people to receive visits from loved ones.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide continuity of support and maintain safeguards if there was a staff shortage.
“There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements are in place now, including visits inside the home and visits in exceptional circumstances?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for infections now?
- 03What happens if a new resident or someone returning from hospital tests positive or may have been exposed to infection?
- 04How do you check that staff are using protective equipment and following hand hygiene and distancing procedures?
- 05What is the home’s most recent overall CQC rating and have there been any inspections since this report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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 Tree Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.