CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherrytree Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were given safely, infection controls were in place and there were enough staff. Accidents and falls were recorded, reviewed and used to reduce future risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved management and quality systems, including regular audits, better records and managers available seven days a week. People, relatives and staff were able to give feedback and raise concerns.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Cherrytree Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and major improvements since the previous Inadequate rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 June 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, there were enough staff, and the premises were clean and maintained. People received prompt healthcare support and staff worked with other professionals.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate. This inspection found improvements in safety, infection control, staff competency and management systems. The home was no longer in breach of regulations, but the inspection only directly looked at Safe and Well-led. The other areas used their previous ratings when calculating the overall Good rating.
Enough, attentive staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. People said call bells were usually answered within five minutes, and staff were described as patient and kind.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained senior staff. Managers checked electronic records daily to make sure medicines had been given as prescribed.
“People had their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Clean, maintained home
The premises were clean and well-maintained. Some areas had been redecorated and refurbished, including new flooring in most areas.
“The premises were clean and well-maintained.” from the report
Improved management
The home introduced daily, weekly and monthly audits and improved its records for accidents, incidents and changing needs. Managers were available throughout the week.
“Since we last inspected the provider and managers have made significant improvements to the governance of the service.” from the report
Activities and atmosphere
The home offered group and one-to-one activities based on people's interests. Inspectors described a friendly and happy atmosphere, with positive comments from people and relatives.
“The service had a friendly, happy atmosphere.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you continuing to review and update each person's risk assessments and care plans?
- 02What do your falls audits show, and what changes have you made after recent falls or accidents?
- 03How do you check that the daily, weekly and monthly management audits lead to lasting improvements?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty for the shifts when my relative would receive care, and how quickly are call bells usually answered?
- 05What activities would be available for my relative, including one-to-one activities based on their interests?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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 placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, safeguarding and leadership failures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 18 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a visitor, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found people were not always protected from avoidable harm. Injuries were not always identified, investigated or reported. Risks linked to dementia, aggression, falls, weight loss and staffing were not managed well. Some areas and equipment were also unclean.
Leadership and checks were ineffective. Important incidents and falls were missed, food and fluid records were completed retrospectively, and relatives reported poor communication, restricted visiting and missing items. The overall rating changed from Good to Inadequate.
The home was placed in special measures. CQC said it would keep the service under review and normally re-inspect within six months, unless it proposed cancelling the provider's registration.
Mental capacity safeguards
Inspectors found the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act principles. Required legal authorisations and conditions were in place where people were deprived of their liberty.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Medicine monitoring system
The online medicine system allowed the provider to monitor and audit medicines and check that they were given correctly. However, not all staff had documented competency checks.
“This system allowed the provider to monitor and audit medicines given and to check they were given correctly.” from the report
Staff knew safeguarding procedures
Staff who spoke with inspectors had received safeguarding training and could explain how to identify and report abuse, although these procedures had not always been followed.
“Staff we spoke with had received training and could describe the correct procedure for identifying abuse and reporting concerns.” from the report
Injuries and abuse were missed
seriousPeople suffered injuries that staff did not identify, record or report promptly. One incident of physical aggression was not known to managers or reported to the local safeguarding team.
“Staff did not always identify or report injuries or there was significant delay in seeking medical attention.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousRisks linked to dementia, aggression, falls, continence and weight loss were not consistently assessed or controlled. Food and fluid records were missing for a person at risk of malnutrition and dehydration.
“Risks were not always assessed or managed.” from the report
Unclean areas and equipment
needs fixingSome areas and equipment were difficult to clean. Inspectors found an unpleasant odour, a dirty bath hoist, a damaged bath surface and a ripped stairlift chair.
“Some areas of the service were not clean.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not find important problems, and records were completed retrospectively. Managers did not have a reliable picture of incidents, falls or people's changing needs.
“The providers systems and processes failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided.” from the report
Poor communication with families
needs fixingRelatives reported frustration about communication, complaints, visiting arrangements and missing items. Inspectors also found limited evidence that people's feedback led to changes.
“Four people's relatives expressed their frustration regarding communication with the registered manager and felt their complaints had not been investigated or responded to.” from the report
Medicine competency records incomplete
needs fixingThe home could show competency checks for only three staff members who administered medicines. It could not show that all relevant staff had been assessed.
“This meant we could not be sure all staff responsible for administering medicines had their competency checked.” from the report
- 01How are injuries, falls and incidents now recorded, investigated and reported to families and safeguarding teams?
- 02What has changed to manage risks linked to dementia, aggression, falls, continence and weight loss?
- 03How do you check that food and fluid records are completed accurately each day for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 04Have all staff who administer medicines had their competency assessed, and how is this kept up to date?
- 05What has changed about visiting, complaints, communication with relatives and the handling of missing personal items?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection, but those ratings are not stated in the supplied text. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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 Cherrytree Residential Home
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.