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
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, and staffing levels were suitable. Medicines, recruitment, emergency arrangements and the premises were checked and found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support, and people's health, food and drink needs were met. Some mental capacity assessment records were incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff being kind, reassuring and respectful. People were supported with privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed, and people were supported with activities they liked. One person's behaviour support guidance was not fully recorded, and complaint actions were not all kept together.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was visible leadership, good teamwork and systems to monitor quality. The report said oversight could improve for accident and incident analysis, complaints and mental capacity assessments.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Cherry Trees is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some management records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 31 October and 5 November 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home supported adults with learning or physical disabilities and/or autism during short respite stays. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and a clean, well-maintained environment. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities they enjoyed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection in March 2016. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns, but said management oversight and some records needed strengthening.
People felt safe
People and relatives gave positive feedback about safety. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and risks were assessed before and during stays.
“People told us they felt safe when using Cherry Trees.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed calm, reassuring interactions. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed staff were consistently reassuring and showed kindness towards people when providing support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, routines, strengths and abilities. Easy-read information helped people understand and take part in their care.
“Care records were person centred and contained essential information about people, for example, activities they liked doing.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received role-specific training and regular supervision. Staff and healthcare professionals described the team as knowledgeable and supportive.
“Staff had been provided with training appropriate for the roles they were performing.” from the report
Activities and family respite
People were supported to continue activities and routines that mattered to them. The service focused on supporting both people and their families.
“People were supported to do activities they were interested in.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe manager did not consistently record their analysis of accident and incident trends. An action plan was produced after the inspection to address this.
“The registered manager was not keeping a record of their analysis of trends and patterns” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions did not have the related mental capacity assessments completed. The report identified this as an area needing improvement.
“some of the correspondent mental capacity assessment had not been completed.” from the report
Complaint records
minorComplaints were handled appropriately, but records of the manager's actions were not all kept in one place. The manager prepared an action plan to improve this.
“records of the actions taken by the manager were not all in the same place.” from the report
Support guidance
needs fixingStaff could describe some strategies for responding to behaviour, but not all of these strategies were written in the care plan. The manager said the information would be added.
“we noted these were not all written in the care plan.” from the report
Recruiting a cook
minorThe home had been unable to recruit a cook for several months. Inspectors found the alternative arrangements met people's dietary needs and preferences.
“The registered manager told us the service had been unable to recruit a cook for several months.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record and review accident and incident trends?
- 02How do you now check that every best-interest decision has a completed mental capacity assessment?
- 03How are complaints and the actions taken now recorded and monitored?
- 04How do you make sure all behaviour support and de-escalation strategies are included in each person's care plan?
- 05How are meals organised while the home is recruiting a cook, and how are dietary preferences checked during each respite stay?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the first visit unannounced, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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 Trees
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.