CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherryfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, risk assessments were in place and medicines were generally managed safely, although thickener records were not initially sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, induction and competency checks. People could choose when to eat, access healthcare and receive support in line with their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect, knew their likes and dislikes, and supported them to make decisions and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, regular quality checks and positive involvement from people and staff. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Cherryfield House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicines and recruitment record issues.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 December 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other service records. They spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and outside professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and their care plans reflected their needs and preferences.
Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, clean premises, good access to healthcare and support for people's choices and independence. They also found that some records needed attention. The amount of thickener given was not recorded clearly, and one staff file did not contain a reference from the person's most recent health and social care employer. These points were addressed or followed up during the inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and would be listened to if they had concerns. The home had enough staff and a consistent staff team.
“People told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, personality and choices about support.
“People's care plans were detailed and reflective of their individual needs and personality.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported them to keep or regain independence where possible.
“Staff encouraged people to take responsibility for meal preparation, for example.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities at home and in the community, including hobbies, quizzes, restaurant visits and local events.
“Staff supported people to engage in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found a positive culture, regular audits and good working relationships with health and social care professionals.
“The provider had a clear management structure that monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report
Thickener records
needs fixingThe medication records did not show how much thickener was given. The records were updated after the first day of inspection.
“The recording of thickener was not sufficient. The medication administration records did not show the amount of thickener which was being given.” from the report
One recruitment reference
minorOne staff file did not contain a reference from the person's most recent employer in health and social care. Management said they would follow this up.
“We found one example where a reference was not obtained from a person's most recent employer in health and social care.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the amount of thickener given to each person?
- 02How do you check that every new staff member has the required employment references?
- 03What refurbishment work is still outstanding, and how might it affect residents?
- 04How will you continue to support people to make decisions and remain independent?
- 05How are people's feedback and complaints used to make further improvements?
This inspection looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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 2018
Cherryfield House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found management needed improvement and activities were not meeting everyone's wishes.
Inspectors visited over two days on 27 and 28 November 2017. The first visit was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, visitors, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, safety checks and management systems.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People generally said they felt safe, respected and well cared for. Staff knew people well, care plans contained detailed personal information, medicines were mostly managed safely, and health needs were monitored.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in September 2016. The earlier breaches about medicines and quality monitoring had been addressed. However, well-led was still rated Requires Improvement because information had not been submitted properly about changes to the service, and further work was needed on activities, medicines procedures and confidential record storage.
Staff knew people well
The home had an established staff team with low turnover. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and preferences.
“This meant people were cared for by staff they knew them well and who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy, explaining care and offering reassurance.
“People living at the service told us they were happy and felt well cared for.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans contained useful information about people's health, choices, interests and personal preferences. They were regularly reviewed.
“Care plans were comprehensive and provided staff with the information they needed in order to provide people with care and support in accordance with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Health and safety checks
The home monitored accidents, risks, equipment and the building. Health professionals gave positive feedback about how people's needs were managed.
“We saw evidence of up to date maintenance checks and overall management and auditing of health and safety within the service.” from the report
Medication procedure was not followed
seriousInspectors saw one staff member give medicines to more than one person at the same time, against the home's own guidance. The manager arranged updated training and competency checks.
“During this inspection we observed one member of staff administered medications for more than one person at the same time and in breach of the services own training and guidance.” from the report
Not enough regular activities
needs fixingMany people and relatives said there was little to do on a regular basis. The manager was reviewing activities and was trying to appoint a dedicated activities coordinator.
“However people we met felt they didn't have much support socially and most people wanted more to do on a daily basis.” from the report
Limited choice about meals
minorPeople enjoyed the food, but some said they did not know the menu or had little choice about what they ate. The manager was asked to review this feedback.
“You don't ask for what you want, you get told what the (Food) is.” from the report
Management information
needs fixingThe provider had not effectively sent CQC the required information about changes to the service. This contributed to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“The registered provider had not effectively submitted the required information to CQC in relation to changes to the service prior to the inspection.” from the report
Bedroom privacy and record storage
minorSome bedroom windows could be seen into from outside when curtains were open, and historical confidential records were initially kept in a small unlocked cupboard. The provider took prompt action on both issues.
“This meant that windows were exposed and the inside of people's bedrooms could be viewed by the public when the curtains were open, especially rooms located on the ground floor.” from the report
- 01What regular activities are now available, and how do you make sure each person can choose activities that interest them?
- 02What checks are now in place to ensure every staff member follows the medicines procedure every time?
- 03What choices can residents make about the meals and menus, and how are their food preferences recorded?
- 04What care can the home provide now that nursing care had not been provided and nursing staff were not employed at the time of the inspection?
- 05How are confidential records stored securely, and what has changed since the inspection?
This was a two-day inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking improvements after the previous inspection, including medicines and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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 Cherryfield House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.