CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherrymead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and the home had increased night staffing as needs became more complex. Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments and the premises were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received appropriate food and healthcare. However, food presentation for people living with dementia needed attention.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, patient and friendly. People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's preferences, needs and goals. People were supported with activities, relationships, changing health needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear focus on independence, and people, relatives and staff were involved in its running. Audits were in place, but they had not identified gaps in refresher training.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Cherrymead was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe staffing, but some training was out of date and food presentation needed attention.
Two inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 May 2018. They observed care, a meal, medicines being given and activities. They spoke with staff, a relative and the manager, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, training records, audits, complaints and other documents.
The inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including support for outings and increased staffing at night. Medicines were managed safely. Care was kind, patient and personalised. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, join activities and use community facilities.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The report also identified that some refresher training was out of date and that food presentation needed improvement for people living with dementia.
Safe staffing
The home had enough staff during the day to meet people's needs and support outings. Night staffing was also increased when people's needs became more complex.
“There were sufficient staff numbers during the day to support people in the home and to accompany people if they are going out.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people well and gave them time and reassurance. Inspectors saw care that respected people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were observed to be caring, patient and friendly with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and goals. People were helped to take part in decisions about their care.
“Care plans were detailed and written in a person-centred style which provided staff with information and guidance on each person.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, both at the home and in the community. This included swimming, hydrotherapy, day-centre visits and social activities.
“People were supported to attend a range of activities including the use of community facilities.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff were assessed as competent before administering medicines.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Out-of-date refresher training
minorTraining records showed that some refresher training was not up to date. The quality checks had not identified this, although inspectors said it had not directly affected people's safety.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge and knew people well but training records showed gaps in keeping refresher training up to date for some staff.” from the report
Food presentation for dementia
minorInspectors saw that a person living with dementia struggled to identify food when it was served on a white plate. The report said adaptations such as stronger colour contrast could improve mealtimes.
“Food presentation for people living with dementia needed attention.” from the report
- 01Which staff refresher courses were out of date at the inspection, and are all of them now completed?
- 02How do you check that audits identify gaps in staff training?
- 03What changes have you made to food presentation for people living with dementia?
- 04How do you decide the number of staff needed at night when people's needs change?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and setting personal goals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the report also checked whether the staffing breach found in April 2016 had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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 Cherrymead
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 February 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.