CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Lodge
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Outstanding
- People were involved in decisions about their safety and supported to take control of their lives. The home used detailed information, specialist Positive Behaviour Support and electronic reporting to manage risks and learn from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs, choices and goals. Staff were well trained, people helped plan meals, and healthcare was coordinated appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate, make choices and build independence at their own pace.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support plans were individual and regularly updated. Staff helped people take part in activities, maintain relationships and achieve personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found strong leadership, clear accountability and an open culture. People, relatives and staff were actively involved in improving the home.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally safe, responsive and well-led care, with effective and caring support rated Good.
The CQC carried out a planned inspection over two visits. The first was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supports up to nine people with a learning disability and/or autism. Inspectors found a strong focus on safety, choice, independence and learning from mistakes. Staff used detailed information about each person to shape their support.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Safe, responsive and well-led were Outstanding. Effective and caring were Good. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2017.
Strong safety support
People were involved in managing risks and were supported to become more independent while staying safe. The home was open about incidents and used them to improve.
“People were fully involved, and the provider was open and transparent when things went wrong.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received specialist training and ongoing support for the needs of the people living at the home.
“People received care and support from exceptionally well-trained and well-supported staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were built around each person. Staff used information about what caused difficulty to help people take part in activities they wanted to do.
“Care records were uniquely tailored to each person and the data generated allowed staff to refine care and support plans to remove barriers for people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People had a say in their care, who supported them and how they spent their time. Staff aimed to use the least restrictive approach.
“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
Open leadership
Managers encouraged feedback from people, families and staff. There were clear systems for monitoring quality and making improvements.
“There was a strong governance framework in place, with clear lines of accountability and processes to drive quality.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for nine people and all nine places were in use. Inspectors said it was larger than current best practice guidance, although individual staff rotas helped reduce any negative impact.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
Some restrictive practices
minorThe report says some restrictive interventions were used. They were described as a last resort and as person-centred, but families should ask whether any would apply to their relative.
“The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles.” from the report
- 01What restrictive interventions are currently used, when might they be used for my relative, and how are they reviewed?
- 02How would my relative be involved in decisions about their safety and care?
- 03How do you match people with their core staff team, and how much choice would my relative have about who supports them?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs and make sure information is provided in a way they understand?
- 05How would you help my relative maintain family relationships and take part in activities they enjoy?
This was a comprehensive planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but medicines guidance and staff turnover needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 October 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, training, audits and other records.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, supported safely and involved in choices about their care.
There were two notable issues. The medicines policy did not make sure advice was sought when medicines were given in food, and staff turnover had been high. The provider was asked to review its medicines policy and said it had taken steps to improve staff retention.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff respected personal space, choices and different ways of communicating.
“We found that staff interacted well with people and people were cared for safely.” from the report
Good support with health and food
People had access to healthcare professionals, drinks and snacks. The home supported individual dietary and health needs.
“People were supported to eat a balanced diet and had access other health professionals and services.” from the report
Activities matched to people
People were offered regular activities and alternatives if they did not want to join in. Staff supported people to use local facilities and keep in contact with relatives.
“People were supported to pursue leisure activities.” from the report
Open management
Staff said they felt supported and able to raise issues. The home used meetings, feedback and regular checks to identify and address concerns.
“There was an open culture in the home.” from the report
Medicines given in food
seriousThe home did not always seek appropriate advice when medicines were crushed or given in food. Inspectors said this could affect how well medicines worked and could make allergy information harder to check.
“People were at risk of medicines not being effective because a process for checks was not in place.” from the report
High staff turnover
needs fixingStaff changes had affected continuity of care. The report says 29 people left between September 2015 and August 2016, although relatives said this had improved.
“We looked at information about staff retention and found that from September 2015 to August 2016 29 people had left, the majority of which had not been with the provider for more than 6 months.” from the report
Some concerns about activities
minorSome relatives felt their family member did not take part in many activities. Inspectors saw that activities were offered, but people were not forced to join in.
“Some relatives raised concerns about activities as they felt their family member did not participate in many activities.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the medicines policy for medicines given in food?
- 02How do you now check that medicines given in food remain effective and that allergy information is up to date?
- 03How has staff turnover changed since the inspection, and how do you maintain continuity of care?
- 04How do you record and review the activities each person wants to do?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and resulting in ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2017 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- November 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: OutstandingEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.