CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherrycroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2024
Cherrycroft rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, staffing, training and management.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced inspection over visits in December 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
They found people were at risk because risk plans, fire checks and health and safety checks were not kept up to date. Staffing was not enough to meet people's needs, and staff training and supervision had major gaps. Inspectors were also not assured that possible safeguarding incidents were always recorded or reported.
Care was not always respectful or based on people's goals and preferences. People could access healthcare and were supported with food and drink, but activities, community access and involvement in care were inconsistent. Management checks had not identified or corrected important problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures, which means the CQC will keep it under review and expects significant improvement.
Food and drink support
People were supported to eat and drink, and menus were developed with people using the home. Dietary needs and preferences were recorded.
“People were supported to eat and drink to maintain their health and nutrition.” from the report
Healthcare access
Staff contacted health professionals when needed and recorded their advice in support plans. Relatives said staff arranged health appointments.
“Staff contacted health professionals such as GP's and nurses if this was needed.” from the report
Some positive activities
Some people accessed the community, and one person was supported to attend a regular voluntary job which helped their independence and confidence.
“This has developed the person's independence and confidence.” from the report
Immediate response after inspection
The interim management team was open about the concerns and sent the CQC an action plan after the inspection.
“Following the inspection an action plan was sent to us which included additional management support.” from the report
People at risk
seriousImportant risk information was out of date. Fire risk actions, fire checks and personal emergency evacuation plans were not consistently completed or reviewed.
“People were not always protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
Not enough skilled staff
seriousStaffing did not always meet people's emotional, leisure and community needs. Training compliance was very low and some supervision and agency staff records were missing.
“The provider had failed to ensure enough competent and skilled staff were deployed in the service.” from the report
Safeguarding records
seriousInspectors could not confirm that all accidents and possible abuse incidents had been recorded or reported to safeguarding authorities and the CQC.
“The systems for safeguarding people from abuse were not operated effectively.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
seriousRelatives reported concerns about people wearing unsuitable clothing and footwear. Inspectors also found an example where a person was being put to bed while naked with the door open.
“People were not always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Weak care planning
needs fixingCare plans did not always reflect people's current needs, goals or aspirations. Reviews and key worker meetings were not happening consistently.
“There was limited information recorded in care plans related to progress on people's goals or aspirations.” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousAudits often failed to identify serious problems or ensure that known problems were fixed. Some relatives said they had lost faith in the management.
“Effective systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service, were not robust.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now on duty at different times, and how are one-to-one hours recorded and checked?
- 02What action has been taken to bring staff training, refresher training and supervision up to date?
- 03How are risk plans, fire checks, emergency evacuation plans and health and safety checks now reviewed?
- 04How are safeguarding incidents, accidents and medicine errors recorded, investigated and reported?
- 05How are people's goals, communication needs, activities and community access recorded and reviewed with them and their representatives?
The inspection began as a focused review of Safe, Effective and Well-led, but concerns led the CQC to widen it to a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 2024 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 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor checks and maintenance tasks still being followed up.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 December 2021. One inspector spoke with five people, four relatives and four staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and contacted two professionals after the visit.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, and had suitable risk assessments. Staff were trained and knew people's health needs.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans included people's preferences and communication needs, and people were supported to take part in activities and use the local community. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the home.
The inspection identified some minor matters. A week's routine safety checks had not been fully completed, some areas needed decoration, and analysis of a 2021 survey was still outstanding. The home was asked to keep improving these areas, but no regulation was breached.
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were stored securely, records were accurate and staff competence was checked. Individual risks had care plans and management plans.
“Medicines were well managed, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions. Staff knew people's preferences, used preferred names and checked before entering rooms or providing care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect by staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's needs, routines, preferences and what mattered to them. Relatives and other professionals were involved in reviews.
“They were very detailed and contained clear information about people's specific needs, their personal preferences, routines, likes, dislikes and what was important to the person.” from the report
Support for interests and community life
People attended college and used local activities such as swimming, cafés and clubs. Staff created activities during lockdown that reflected people's interests.
“Other people used the community how they wanted by going swimming or to cafes and clubs.” from the report
Effective oversight
The home used audits, staff meetings, supervision and feedback to monitor care and support improvement.
“Regular audits were carried out to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Incomplete routine safety checks
needs fixingInspectors found that routine checks for the previous week had not been fully completed. The registered manager was following this up.
“Although we did note routine checks for the previous week had not been thoroughly completed.” from the report
Some areas needed decoration
minorThe registered manager said some parts of the home needed decoration. The work had been requested from the provider.
“The registered manager told us some areas of the service required decoration and this work had been requested to the provider.” from the report
Survey analysis was outstanding
minorA 2021 survey had been sent out, but its analysis had not been completed when inspectors visited.
“The registered manager told us whilst a 2021 survey had been sent out the analysis was yet to be completed.” from the report
- 01Have the incomplete routine safety checks now been completed, and how are these checks monitored?
- 02Which areas of the home needed decoration, and has the requested work been carried out?
- 03What did the 2021 survey show, and how has the feedback been used?
- 04Who will manage the home day to day, and how will cover be arranged when the registered manager is overseeing another service?
- 05How will the home make sure its size does not affect people's space, choice or independence?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control measures linked to COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2022 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 Cherrycroft
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- June 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.