CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherrywood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but cleanliness, building upkeep and management systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 14 December 2022. Inspectors spoke with people and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records. They also asked local services for feedback.
People were generally treated kindly and supported to make choices, pursue interests and take part in activities. Staff understood people's communication needs, managed risks and medicines, and worked with other professionals.
The main problems were some unclean areas, gaps in cleaning records, repairs needed to parts of the building and weaknesses in quality checks. There were also staff vacancies, low morale and no permanent registered manager at the time. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Only Safe and Well-led were inspected at this visit.
Kind and respectful care
People received compassionate care. Staff protected privacy and dignity and responded to individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
People were supported to pursue interests, work towards goals and take part in activities they chose.
“People were supported by staff to pursue their interests. Staff supported people to achieve their aspirations and goals.” from the report
Understanding communication
Staff could understand people who communicated through body language and sounds, helping them interact comfortably.
“People who had individual ways of communicating, using body language and sounds could interact comfortably with staff and others involved in their care and support because staff had the necessary skills to understand them.” from the report
Cleanliness and repairs
needs fixingSome areas were not clean, cleaning records had gaps and parts of the building needed repair. The medicines room was overcrowded, which affected effective cleaning.
“We found some areas of the home that were not clean. There were some gaps in the cleaning records.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits and daily checks did not always identify or resolve problems promptly. Inspectors found broken bins and dusty air vents that had not been identified.
“The systems to monitor the quality of the service were not fully effective in ensuring shortfalls were actioned.” from the report
Management instability
needs fixingThere had not been a consistent registered manager for some time. Staff also reported low morale and that information was not always shared effectively.
“Staff commented about the number of managers that had been working in the service over the past 9 months, they felt this impacted on the team morale.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingVacancies were high and were being covered by regular agency staff. Relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing consistency and levels.
“The service had staff vacancies; these were being filled with regular agency staff to assist with continuity.” from the report
Medicines storage
needs fixingIndividual medicines cupboards did not have their own temperature monitoring. A replacement controlled medicines cupboard was ordered after inspectors raised the issue.
“Although medicine room temperatures were monitored, individual cupboards were not.” from the report
- 01Have all the cleaning gaps, broken bins, dusty air vents and other environmental problems identified by inspectors now been put right?
- 02Has the planned refurbishment been completed, including repairs to flooring, bath and toilet seals, and walls?
- 03Who is the registered manager now, and how are you improving staff morale and communication?
- 04How many permanent staff vacancies remain, and how do you make sure regular agency staff know each person's needs?
- 05Have individual medicines cupboards and the controlled medicines storage cupboard been brought up to the required standard?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. 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, September 2020
Cherrywood House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors made an announced visit on 20 August 2020. This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors found good practice in visits, use of protective equipment, testing and support for people who found coronavirus information difficult to understand. They were also assured that the home was managing social distancing, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. The other areas of care were not assessed in this visit.
Well-organised visiting
Visits were planned to reduce infection risks. Visitors were given information in advance, and people's individual visiting plans considered their risks.
“People were supported to keep in touch with families and visits were planned and well organised to reduce risk and avoid the potential spread of infection.” from the report
Accessible information
The home used a social story to explain coronavirus in a way that people could understand. This helped people follow infection control and social distancing measures.
“A social story had been created about 'Cory the Corona' to share information about coronavirus in an accessible way.” from the report
Planning for outbreaks
The provider had plans for managing current or future outbreaks and used information from the service to support learning.
“Contingency plans were in place to manage ongoing or future outbreaks or other events effectively.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff received regular supervision, additional infection control training and risk assessments when returning from sickness absence.
“Staff had received additional infection prevention and control (IPC) training, and the local IPC lead was planning to attend additional training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently planned, and how are individual visiting risks recorded?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when someone cannot give informed consent?
- 03What training have staff completed on infection prevention and recognising physical deterioration?
- 04What are the current plans if there is an outbreak or another emergency?
- 05What were the home's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led at the previous full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 2020 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 Cherrywood House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 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.