CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherrydale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found better care and management, but medicines, infection control and quality checks still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 13 December 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe. Risks, staffing, training, consent, food, healthcare and activities were generally managed well. However, one staff member had not had their medicines competency checked, some staff did not wear face masks correctly, and some care plan checks had not found inaccurate information.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective was Good. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations, and the home was no longer in Special Measures.
Better risk management
Risks linked to eating, drinking, falls and equipment were better assessed and managed. Staff followed guidance and used suitable equipment.
“Risks associated with people's care were well managed.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to provide safe care and support activities. People said they did not have to wait long for help.
“Staffing levels had been reviewed and there were now sufficient numbers of staff on duty to provide safe care.” from the report
Respect for choices
Staff supported people to make choices and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Mental capacity and best-interest decisions were recorded when needed.
“People's care was now provided in line with the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received the training and supervision needed for their roles. People and relatives spoke positively about staff competence and respect.
“People received care from staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge for their roles.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals and recorded their advice and actions taken.
“The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals who were involved in people's care.” from the report
Medicines competency check
seriousOne staff member who administered medicines had not had their competency checked. The manager addressed this immediately after inspectors raised it, but the medicines audit had not identified the gap.
“One member of staff responsible for administering medicines had not had their competency checked to ensure they did this safely.” from the report
Infection control practice
needs fixingSome staff, including the manager, were not wearing face masks correctly or in line with current guidance. This was addressed during the inspection.
“Staff did not always wear PPE in line with government guidance.” from the report
Care plan checks
needs fixingQuality checks had not found inaccurate information about risks in one person's care plan. Inspectors said further improvement was needed.
“Further improvements were required to the quality monitoring of care plans.” from the report
Relative feedback
minorRelatives could give feedback when they wished, but there had not yet been a formal process to collect relatives' feedback since the previous inspection.
“there had been no formal process of collecting feedback from relatives since our last inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every staff member who gives medicines has passed a competency assessment?
- 02What checks are in place to make sure staff follow current infection prevention and control guidance?
- 03How often are care plans audited, and how do you make sure inaccurate risk information is corrected quickly?
- 04What formal process is now being used to collect and act on relatives' feedback?
- 05What improvements have been made since this inspection, and how are you checking that they are fully embedded?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on the previous concerns and included infection prevention and control; Safe, Effective and Well-led were assessed, while other ratings carried over from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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, November 2022
Rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found unsafe care, too few staff at times and ineffective management checks.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 1 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
They found people were at risk from unsafe moving and handling, missing risk information, hot water, unchecked window restrictors and poor medicines guidance. Some safeguarding concerns had not been reported promptly, and there were not always enough staff to meet people's needs.
The home did some things well. Staff received training, pressure-relieving mattresses were checked, infection control arrangements were satisfactory, and people and relatives could give feedback. However, management checks had not found or fixed important problems.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe and well-led were Inadequate, while effective was Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures, with further monitoring and a possible reinspection within six months.
Healthcare support
People generally had access to healthcare professionals, and staff worked with outside services to support people's health needs.
“The registered manager and staff team worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people's healthcare needs were met.” from the report
Food choices
People and relatives spoke positively about the food and the home responded to individual preferences.
“There's a variety of food. They always make sure if [person] wants a cheese sandwich, they get a cheese sandwich as it's their favourite.” from the report
Infection control
The laundry area had improved and inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements.
“At this inspection we found the laundry room had been refurbished and it appeared clean and uncluttered.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received relevant training, including dementia awareness, and new staff had an induction and time to shadow others.
“New staff also shadowed other staff before providing any care themselves.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousRisk assessments and care records did not cover important needs, including choking, diabetes and safe moving and handling. People were left at risk of avoidable harm.
“People remained at risk of harm because systems were not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality monitoring had not found or corrected repeated problems in care plans, food and fluid records, medicines, safety and safeguarding notifications.
“Quality monitoring systems at the service were not effective. They had not identified and addressed the shortfalls we found.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make moving and handling safer, and how are staff checked on their use of hoists and other equipment?
- 02How many care staff are now on duty after 8pm, and can people choose when to go to bed if they need two staff for personal care?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now completed and recorded?
- 04What safeguards are in place for medicines given covertly, and are prescriber or pharmacist instructions recorded for each person?
- 05How are safeguarding concerns, water safety risks and care-record gaps now identified, reported and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were not newly assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 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 Cherrydale
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.