CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, cleanliness, social distancing and the home's ability to prevent or manage outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about visitor testing, the infection control policy and visiting arrangements, although processes were updated after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Cherry Tree Lodge was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly in place, but some visiting and policy arrangements needed updating.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home was clean, had enough protective equipment and was carrying out routine testing. People said they felt safe and well cared for. The layout and visiting room helped reduce the risk of infection spreading.
There were some shortfalls. Not every visitor was asked for a negative lateral flow test, the infection control policy needed updating, and arrangements for essential care givers and testing after visits out did not fully follow current guidance. The provider changed its processes after the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so it does not provide an overall Good or Inadequate rating.
Clean surroundings
The home was visibly clean, uncluttered and suitable for social distancing.
“The home was light, airy, uncluttered and visibly clean throughout.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
The home provided indoor and outdoor visiting options, including a visiting room with separate garden access to reduce infection risks.
“This meant visitors could see their loved ones without entering the building, reducing the risk of spreading COVID-19.” from the report
People felt safe
People were comfortable with staff and visitors wearing masks and said they felt safe and well cared for.
“People told us they felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Visitor testing
needs fixingNot all visitors were asked to show a negative lateral flow test, which was not in line with current government guidance at the time. The provider amended this process after the inspection.
“however, not all visitors were asked to produce a negative lateral flow device test.” from the report
Out-of-date policy
needs fixingThe infection prevention and control policy did not fully reflect current government guidance.
“The current policy required updating to reflect the current government guidance.” from the report
Visiting during outbreaks
needs fixingThe home had not arranged essential care givers, and people returning from outside visits were not being tested every second day for ten days as required by the guidance at the time. The provider later updated its processes.
“the service had not set up essential care givers to ensure visits could continue in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak.” from the report
Admissions paused
minorThe provider had stopped accepting new admissions to avoid placing pressure on the workforce. Inspectors therefore were not assured about safe admissions.
“We were not assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
- 01Are you accepting new residents now, and what staffing arrangements are in place to support new admissions?
- 02What visitor testing rules are in place now, and how do you check that visitors follow them?
- 03Have you updated the infection prevention and control policy, and when was it last reviewed?
- 04Who can act as an essential care giver if there is a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 05What testing is arranged for residents who return from visits outside the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with fire door arrangements addressed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 14 and 16 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with seven people, three relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, rotas, training records and how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and dignity, received personalised care, had access to suitable food and health support, and were involved in decisions about their care.
Inspectors found that fire doors in three bedrooms were not being kept closed. The registered manager acted immediately by buying fire guards so doors could remain open at residents' request while maintaining fire safety. The home also agreed to buy a maximum and minimum thermometer for the medicines fridge.
At the previous inspection, published in October 2017, the home was not compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had some minor improvements to make. Inspectors found these issues had been addressed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that people were treated kindly and that their privacy and dignity were protected.
“People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. Their privacy and dignity was upheld” from the report
Personalised support
Assessments and care plans covered people's physical, mental health and social needs. Plans were updated when people's needs changed.
“People's physical, mental health and social needs were comprehensively assessed, and care and support was planned and delivered in a personalised way to meet those needs.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough appropriately trained staff to provide person-centred support. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals.
“There were sufficient appropriately trained staff on duty to support people in a person-centred way.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were stored securely and records showed that medicines had been given as prescribed, with no unexplained gaps in the administration records.
“Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed medicines had been signed for when given.” from the report
Fire doors were open
seriousFire doors in three bedrooms were not closed, which could have weakened the home's fire safety arrangements. The registered manager bought fire guards by the end of the inspection day to address this.
“On the second day of the inspection we observed that fire doors in three people's room were not kept closed, which could have compromised the fire safety arrangements.” from the report
Medicines fridge monitoring
needs fixingThe fridge temperature was recorded daily, but the home did not yet have a maximum and minimum thermometer. The registered manager agreed to buy one.
“Although the temperature of the fridge was being recorded each day, the registered manager agreed to buying a maximum/minimum thermometer for the fridge” from the report
One person was unhappy
minorOne person said they were not happy in the home. Inspectors found that the concern was being addressed with the person's local authority care manager as part of a complex situation.
“One person, on the first day of the inspection, told us that they were not happy in the home.” from the report
- 01How are fire guards and replacement fire doors now being used to keep bedroom doors open safely when residents request this?
- 02How are medicines fridge temperatures checked, and is a maximum and minimum thermometer now in place?
- 03How do you assess and record mental capacity and best-interest decisions following the issues found at the previous inspection?
- 04How are residents' individual hobbies, interests and activities supported when there is no activities coordinator?
- 05How would you handle it if a resident said they were unhappy living here, and how would the family be involved?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and checking action taken after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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 Tree Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.