CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Lodge Private Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks linked to fire safety, accidents and falls were not always assessed, monitored or reviewed. Medicines were managed safely, but not all staff had suitable medicines training, and infection control records and training needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Necessary mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were not always in place. Staff training was incomplete, and records about food intake and modified diets were not always reliable.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and involved them in choices about their care and daily routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally person-centred and communication needs were identified. Activities and religious and cultural preferences were supported, although some care plans contained conflicting information.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was approachable and staff described a positive culture, but audits and governance systems did not reliably identify risks or ensure that lessons were learned from incidents.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious weaknesses in risk management, staff training, legal safeguards and oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 10 and 11 January 2023. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, checked care and medicine records, and reviewed recruitment, training, safety and management systems.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. There were enough staff, medicines were stored and given safely, and relatives could visit. However, risks from fires, accidents and falls were not always properly checked or followed up. Cleaning records were incomplete and some staff lacked required training.
Inspectors found that some people were deprived of their liberty without the necessary assessments or applications. Care records sometimes conflicted, including information about modified diets. The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive, but Requires Improvement overall and for Safe, Effective and Well-led.
The previous overall rating was Outstanding, published in February 2019. The provider made some immediate changes after the inspection, and CQC requested an action plan so it could monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw kind, caring and respectful interactions, including support that protected people's privacy.
“Throughout our inspection we observed staff to be kind, caring, compassionate and respectful.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Staff were visible and available, with agency staff used when needed.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Safe medicine handling
Medicines were stored and administered safely, with guidance for as-required medicines and records for time-specific medicines.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised support
People and relatives were involved in assessments and care choices. The environment was accessible and included dementia-friendly signs.
“People and their relatives spoke highly of the assessment process and felt involved.” from the report
Support for relationships and preferences
People were encouraged to join activities and maintain relationships. Religious and cultural preferences were supported.
“People were encouraged to take part in events at the home and develop relationships.” from the report
Risks were not reliably managed
seriousFire checks and risk assessments were not always up to date. Falls had occurred without proper awareness, auditing or analysis, increasing the risk of harm.
“This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Unlawful restrictions
seriousSome people were deprived of their liberty without the required mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions or legal applications.
“This meant people were unlawfully being deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousSome staff had not completed important training, including fire safety, medicines and mental capacity training. The provider could not always show that medicine competence had been checked.
“The provider failed to ensure staff had received the appropriate training necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform.” from the report
Conflicting diet information
seriousInformation about modified diets was inconsistent and staff knowledge varied. This could have led to the wrong diet being given to someone at risk of choking.
“This placed people at risk of harm if the wrong diet was offered.” from the report
Weak oversight and learning
seriousAudits did not identify problems found during the inspection. There was little evidence that the home learned from incidents, and significant accidents were not always shared with staff.
“The failure to effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service is a breach of regulation 17 (2) (a) (b) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014” from the report
Incomplete cleaning evidence
needs fixingThe home looked clean, but large gaps in cleaning records meant inspectors could not see evidence that cleaning had taken place. Not all staff had infection control training.
“There were large gaps in the cleaning records which meant there was no evidence that cleaning had taken place.” from the report
- 01Have all fire risk assessments, fire safety checks and staff fire training now been completed and recorded?
- 02Have all people who may be restricted had the required mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 03Can you show that every staff member who gives medicines has completed training and a competency assessment?
- 04How are falls, accidents and incidents now recorded, reviewed and shared with staff so lessons are learned?
- 05How do you check that care plans and modified-diet instructions are accurate and consistent?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care home covering all five key questions; the separately registered community personal care service was not being provided at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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, February 2019
Cherry Tree Lodge Private Residential Care Home was rated Outstanding; inspectors found kind, personalised care, strong activities and very good leadership.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 January 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people living there, visitors, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were given by trained staff, and there were enough suitable staff. People received appropriate healthcare, enjoyed the food and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found personalised activities, strong community links, excellent end-of-life support and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection in July 2016 to Outstanding.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors consistently praised the staff. Inspectors saw warm, patient and affectionate interactions, with people treated as individuals.
“We observed excellent caring, affectionate and respectful interactions between staff and people; we observed lots of smiles, hugs and laughter.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could choose from activities suited to their interests, including music, movement, creative activities and visits from local children. The home also had strong community links.
“People were engaged in varied, stimulating and meaningful activities which met their individual interests.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, backgrounds and communication needs. Staff used this information to provide individual support and meaningful conversation.
“The care plans were organised and included information about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and routines” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found a committed manager, a stable and enthusiastic staff team, and effective systems for checking and improving the service.
“There were very effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
End-of-life support
Staff had specialist training and accreditation in end-of-life care. People and families were involved in advance care planning and were given support at difficult times.
“The management and staff provided people and their families and friends with excellent care and support at the end of their life” from the report
Medicine date records
minorInspectors discussed the importance of recording opening dates on boxed and bottled medicines. The report does not say this caused harm or led to a breach.
“We discussed, with the registered manager, the importance of recording opening dates on boxed and bottled medicines.” from the report
- 01How are opening dates recorded and checked on boxed and bottled medicines?
- 02What activities are available now, and how are they matched to each person's interests and past life?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty during the day and night, and has the staff team changed since the inspection?
- 04How are people's care plans reviewed when their health, preferences or communication needs change?
- 05How would you involve our family member in decisions about daily care and future end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care home; the agency service was registered but was not providing care in people's own homes at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 Lodge Private Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Cherry Tree Lodge Private Residential Care Home →
- February 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Cherry Tree Lodge Private Residential Care Home →
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.