CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Trees
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safeguarding systems, risk assessments, safe medicine arrangements and effective infection control. They identified some gaps, including missing risk assessments for uncovered radiators, medicine fridge temperature records without recorded actions and some expired medicine competency checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated, although inspectors reported that people received kind and compassionate care and that staff respected privacy, dignity and individual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated, although people were supported to follow their interests, make choices and pursue their goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive and person-centred leadership, clear staff roles, quality checks and ways for people, relatives and staff to give feedback.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some medicines and safety records needing attention.
The home provides residential care for up to 9 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. There were 7 people living there during the inspection. The inspection was unannounced and took place over two days.
Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records. They found enough staff, safe medicines systems, safeguarding arrangements and infection control measures.
People were described as receiving kind and respectful care. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence and interests. The home was also found to have positive leadership and systems for checking the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and well-led were also rated Good. The other three key questions were not rated in this inspection. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 28 March 2019.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, privacy and dignity. Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Familiar staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Relatives said familiar staff supported their family members, with very little agency use.
“The staff are outstanding and have been there for a long time, there are rarely agency staff there.” from the report
Support for choice
People were supported to pursue their interests, make choices and take positive risks where appropriate. Staff aimed to use the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had a person-centred culture. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management, teamwork and support provided.
“There was a person centred and positive culture in the service.” from the report
Feedback and learning
People had weekly meetings, relatives received newsletters and staff had meetings and daily handovers. Incidents were reviewed and learning was shared.
“People attended weekly residents' meetings where items relevant to the running of the house and activities were discussed.” from the report
Uncovered radiators
needs fixingSeveral radiators were uncovered. The manager said people were not at risk, but individual risk assessments had not been completed until inspectors raised this.
“There were several uncovered radiators throughout the home, although the registered manager told us people were not at risks relating to hot surfaces” from the report
Medicine fridge records
needs fixingThe medicine fridge temperature was slightly outside the expected range on several occasions. The records did not show what action had been taken.
“There were no details of the actions taken to rectify this.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingSome staff members' annual checks for giving medicines safely had expired. The manager said there were plans to complete them.
“Some staff members annual competency had expired, we discussed this with the registered manager who told us they had plans in place” from the report
Employment history record
minorOne staff file had gaps in the person's employment history. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We identified 1 staff member who had gaps in their employment history” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home is larger than the size usually considered practicable for person-centred care under the guidance used by CQC. Inspectors said the home was nevertheless providing person-centred support.
“The service design and model did not fully meet the principles of Right support, right care, right culture.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to assess and manage the risks from the uncovered radiators?
- 02How do you now record and respond when the medicine fridge temperature goes outside the expected range?
- 03Have all staff completed their annual medicine competency checks, and how is this monitored?
- 04How does the home make sure its size does not prevent truly person-centred care and support?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to improve the service?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the other three key questions were not rated in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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, March 2019
Cherry Trees was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some supervision and premises improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced, scheduled comprehensive inspection on 25 February 2019. One inspector looked at the building, care records, staff files, medicines, audits and other records. They also observed care and spoke with one person, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, supported by trained staff and given safe medicines. They also found that care plans were detailed and personalised, and that people were supported to make choices and stay involved in their communities.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Relatives were involved in care reviews and felt listened to. The home had activities, links with health professionals and systems for checking quality. However, formal staff supervision was not up to date, and one ground-floor area was identified as a possible infection control risk.
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and discrimination. Inspectors found enough staff to support people in a calm and unhurried way.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's communication, preferences and routines. They supported privacy, dignity, independence and relationships.
“Staff showed genuine concern for people and were keen to ensure people's rights were upheld and that they were not discriminated against in any way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, interests, life histories and preferences. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“Care plans were personalised and detailed daily routines specific to each person.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could take part in a range of activities and maintain friendships and family relationships. Inspectors found that people were supported to have active social lives.
“A range of activities were available, including a day centre, horse riding, swimming and bowling.” from the report
Quality checks and leadership
Managers carried out regular checks and sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Feedback had led to changes such as offering more menu choices.
“The feedback had been used to continuously improve the service.” from the report
Formal staff supervision
needs fixingFormal supervision meetings for staff were not up to date and were not being provided in line with the provider's policy. Inspectors noted that staff received informal support instead.
“Staff had not had formal supervision in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Ground-floor area
needs fixingOne ground-floor area was identified as a possible infection control risk. The manager said it was due to be completely renovated.
“One area on the ground floor required improvement because it was potentially an infection control risk.” from the report
DoLS condition
needs fixingOne person's authorised DoLS had a condition that staff believed could be unsafe to fulfil. The registered manager had asked the local authority to review it.
“For one person, staff were concerned that fulfilling the requirements would be unsafe.” from the report
- 01What has been done to bring formal staff supervision up to date, and how often will it now take place?
- 02Has the ground-floor area identified as a possible infection control risk been renovated?
- 03What was the outcome of the request to the local authority about the DoLS condition that staff believed could be unsafe?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and best-interest decisions?
- 05Which activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five key questions assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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 Trees
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.