CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control arrangements, including PPE, visiting, distancing, admissions and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about testing because practice had not caught up with the latest guidance.
- 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 safety and support, but testing arrangements were not fully up to date.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The visit was announced two days in advance.
The home supported people's wellbeing during the pandemic. Staff worked with families and health professionals, supported vaccinations and helped people visit family and receive visitors in line with guidance. Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including PPE, cleaning, distancing and managing outbreaks.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that testing was being carried out in line with the latest government guidance. The written paperwork had been updated, but this had not yet been put into practice. The registered manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas.
Support during the pandemic
Managers and staff supported people's wellbeing and worked with families and healthcare professionals to reduce anxiety during the pandemic.
“The management and staff team helped ensure that people's wellbeing was maintained throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Vaccination support
People were supported to receive vaccinations and boosters. The home made extra arrangements for a person who had a fear of needles.
“People were supported to access appropriate vaccinations, including COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to have visitors and to visit family members in line with restrictions and guidance. Telephone contact was also used to support visiting.
“People had been supported to have visitors come to the service in line with COVID-19 restrictions and guidelines.” from the report
Most infection controls
Inspectors were assured about the home’s use of PPE, social distancing, admissions, hygiene, outbreak management and infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Testing records and practice
needs fixingThe testing paperwork recognised the latest change in government guidance, but staff practice had not yet been updated. The registered manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“Although paperwork had acknowledged the most recent change in testing requirements from government guidance, this had not been updated in practice.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure testing for people and staff follows the latest government guidance?
- 02How do you check that visitors and visiting professionals are following the home’s infection prevention arrangements?
- 03How will you support my relative if they find testing or vaccination difficult?
- 04How are staffing pressures monitored, and what happens if COVID-19 affects staffing levels?
- 05How can my relative keep in contact with family and receive visitors in line with their preferences?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating across all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with no end-of-life plans in place.
The inspection took place on 27 February and 4 March 2019. One inspector spoke with both people living in the home, a staff member, the manager, a relative and a health professional. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines, accidents, complaints, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff knew them well, and support was planned around their choices, goals and independence.
The main shortfalls were that end-of-life plans were not in place, and regular surveys of people, relatives and staff had stopped. The manager said they were considering how to continue discussions about end-of-life care and used other ways to hear people's views.
Consistent staff
People were supported by a small, long-standing team who knew their conditions, needs and preferences well.
“People were supported by a small but consistent team of long-term staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Person-centred plans
Care plans included personal goals, preferred routines, choices and interests. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“Care and support plans were person centred throughout.” from the report
Building independence
The home supported people to gain skills, make choices and do more for themselves, including laundry and activities in the community.
“People's support focussed on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safety systems
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for risk assessments, fire safety, safeguarding, recruitment, medicines and learning from incidents.
“Where risks were identified, people's care plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to reduce the risk of harm to people.” from the report
No end-of-life plans
needs fixingEnd-of-life plans had not been completed. The manager said people had not wanted to discuss this at the time and the team was considering how to continue those discussions.
“End of life plans were not in place.” from the report
Formal surveys had stopped
minorThe home no longer carried out surveys of people, relatives and staff because the response rate had been low. Inspectors recorded that other ways of involving people were discussed.
“Although the service had previously undertaken surveys of people, relatives and staff, this no longer happened.” from the report
- 01How will you continue discussing and recording my relative's end-of-life wishes if they do not want to discuss them at first?
- 02How do you now gather regular feedback from people, relatives and staff since formal surveys stopped?
- 03How will you make sure my relative has a consistent staff team who understand their needs and preferred routines?
- 04What personal goals and independence skills would you work on with my relative?
- 05How are care plans reviewed, and how are relatives and relevant health professionals involved?
This was a planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, and the previous Good rating from 2016 was unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 2019 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 Close
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.