CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Manor
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Cherry Tree Manor was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly in place, but staff mask use and testing needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home had clear arrangements for visitors, including screening, testing, personal protective equipment and different types of visits. Inspectors also found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning tasks completed throughout the day.
Inspectors were not fully assured that staff were using face masks correctly or completing the required twice-weekly rapid COVID-19 tests. The home said it would address these issues immediately.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for all five key questions.
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were screened and given personal protective equipment. The home offered several types of visits, including face-to-face, garden and window visits.
“Face to face visits, where one nominated visitor and people could meet and hold hands, were taking place in designated rooms, or within people's bedrooms if this was required.” from the report
Cleanliness
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning work was organised and carried out throughout the day.
“Cleaning schedules were in place, with tasks methodically completed throughout the day.” from the report
Risk planning
The home had COVID-19 procedures and guidance. Risks to people and staff had been assessed.
“Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed.” from the report
Masks were not always worn correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw three staff members wearing face masks incorrectly. The home said it would address this immediately.
“We observed three members of staff who were not wearing face masks correctly.” from the report
Staff testing was not completed as required
needs fixingStaff were not completing rapid COVID-19 tests twice a week in line with the guidance mentioned in the report. The home said it would start this routine immediately.
“However, staff were not completing rapid tests for COVID-19 twice weekly in accordance with government guidance.” from the report
- 01Have all staff been trained again on how to wear face masks correctly?
- 02Are staff now completing rapid COVID-19 tests twice a week, and how is this recorded?
- 03How does the home check that personal protective equipment is being used correctly?
- 04How are visitor screening, testing and cleaning between visits managed now?
- 05When was the last follow-up check of the infection prevention arrangements?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it did not provide a full overall assessment or ratings for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Cherry Tree Manor was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but safety, training, consent and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 8 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, incident records, training information, audits and safeguarding records.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. Activities were available, complaints were handled, staffing levels were sufficient, the home was clean and medicines were safely managed. However, incidents and safeguarding concerns were not always handled properly. Some risks and care records were not updated when people's needs changed.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2016. CQC said there was limited assurance about safety and an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff took time to understand people and supported their independence.
“Staff were seen to be kind and caring towards people and people confirmed this.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's care and social needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“People were supported by sufficient staff who knew them well.” from the report
Clean environment
The home and communal areas were clean and staff followed infection control procedures.
“People lived in a clean home and communal areas were well maintained.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could join a range of activities and outings. Staff also spent time with people who chose to stay in their rooms.
“Activities were social, inclusive events and included things such as arts and crafts, games, movies, social events, trips out to the community and reminiscence for people living with dementia.” from the report
Safeguarding and incident handling
seriousSome unexplained injuries were not reported when they should have been. Incidents were not always fully investigated or used to prevent similar events happening again.
“Safeguarding incidents were not always reported to the local authority.” from the report
Care records and risk assessments
needs fixingRecords did not always describe people's current needs or the care and equipment required. Risks were not consistently reassessed when people's needs changed.
“Care records were not sufficiently maintained.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousSome training had expired. One inexperienced staff member worked unsupervised without training or a competency assessment.
“One new staff member with no previous experience of care was working unsupervised.” from the report
Consent and legal safeguards
seriousSome relatives signed consent documents without legal authority. Capacity assessments and authorisations for restrictions were not always updated when circumstances changed.
“We identified some examples where people's relatives with no legal authority to do so had signed on their relative's behalf.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not reliably identify problems with incidents, reporting, training and care records. Similar issues had been identified before but still needed further work.
“Audits failed to identify the concerns with incident management and reporting.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure every safeguarding concern and unexplained injury is reported and fully investigated?
- 02How do you make sure risk assessments and care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 03Are all staff now up to date with safeguarding, fire, moving and handling, medicines and other key training?
- 04How do you check that consent, mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards are legally correct and updated when restrictions change?
- 05What changes have been made to the quality audits so that problems are found and acted on before they affect people's safety?
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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 Manor
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.