CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk records, staffing, medicines, infection control and restrictions were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and well-led. The manager and staff promoted a positive, person-centred culture and used audits and feedback to improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and positive leadership, but this was a focused inspection of only Safe and Well-led.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 August 2022. One inspector spoke with six staff, two relatives and two professionals. They reviewed two support plans, medicines records, four staff files and documents about incidents, audits, policies and training.
The home supported nine people, out of a possible 11. Inspectors found people were safe, risks were assessed, medicines were managed properly and there were enough staff. Staff knew people well, including their communication needs, and restrictions were used only when necessary and were reviewed.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. The manager was new and was still completing registration with the CQC. The culture was described as positive, with people’s wishes and needs at the centre of care.
The inspection followed concerns about safety, restrictive practices and staff training. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. The overall Good rating stayed the same, but ratings for the other three questions were carried over from the previous inspection.
Personalised support
People’s support plans were clear and tailored to their risks, communication and individual needs. Staff supported people to make choices and used the least restrictive approach possible.
“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
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to support people safely. Although agency staff were used and some experienced staff had left, a core team and regular agency staff knew people well.
“There was a core staff team who knew people well and provided consistency and experience to the people living at the service.” from the report
Good risk management
Risk assessments were up to date and personalised. The environment and equipment were checked regularly, and incidents and restrictions were reviewed for learning.
“Records were up to date, clear and personalised. This enabled staff to give people the support they needed.” from the report
Positive leadership
The new manager was visible and approachable. Staff, relatives and professionals described communication and working relationships positively overall.
“The manager was visible, well known and approachable. They led by example and worked with staff in supporting people.” from the report
Updates for relatives
minorOne relative was not satisfied with the updates they received about changes to the home, although they felt communication had improved more recently.
“Another had been less satisfied with the updates they received about changes to the service.” from the report
Infection control policy
minorInspectors were assured about infection prevention and control arrangements, but the policy was being reviewed to make sure it was up to date.
“The provider's infection prevention and control policy was under review to ensure it was up to date.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the manager’s registration with the CQC?
- 02How will you keep relatives updated about changes to the home and their family member’s care?
- 03How many permanent and agency staff usually support people, and how do you make sure agency staff know each person well?
- 04What changes have been made to the infection prevention and control policy since this inspection?
- 05What are the current plans to improve the living environment for people’s wellbeing, sensory and physical needs?
This was a focused, unannounced inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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 2021
Cherry Tree House was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, but staff turnover remained a concern.
This was a focused inspection on 11 March 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at safety and how the home was managed. They reviewed records, policies, care plans and audits, observed the home, and spoke with staff, relatives and professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, risk assessments and safety checks had improved, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were suitable.
There had been a high turnover of staff for several years. Agency staff were used to maintain safe staffing levels, but some relatives and staff said agency workers did not always know people or the home well.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous comprehensive inspection in November 2019. The earlier breaches had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection because they were not examined during this focused visit.
Improved safety checks
Risk assessments and checks of the environment and equipment were recorded and monitored. These gave staff guidance about people's individual risks and needs.
“People's care needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
The home had medicines guidance, staff training and regular audits. Inspectors were also assured about infection prevention, protective equipment and outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Organised management
Managers had regular systems for checking care quality and safety. Policies were up to date and managers reviewed daily, weekly and monthly checks.
“Checks were completed daily, weekly and monthly, and senior staff and managers reviewed these.” from the report
Person-centred support
Staff aimed to give people choice, control and opportunities to become more independent. Inspectors found the home was working towards the principles of right support, right care and right culture.
“The provider promoted a person-centred culture which supported people's potential and independence.” from the report
High staff turnover
needs fixingThe home had experienced high staff turnover for several years and routinely relied on agency staff to maintain safe staffing. Staff and relatives said some agency workers did not know people well.
“There had been a high turnover of staff at the service for a number of years.” from the report
Variable communication
minorRelatives said staff generally kept them informed, but consistency was not always the same. The report also linked staff turnover to communication problems for one person.
“Some relatives felt consistency was variable, but were satisfied that their family member was safe and they were kept informed.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work at the home, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication, behaviour and care needs?
- 03What is being done to recruit and retain permanent staff?
- 04How will you maintain consistent communication with relatives about incidents or changes affecting their family member?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also reviewed; the other three ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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 House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 April 2014.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South 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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 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.