CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cherry Tree Dispersed
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and personal risks. Staffing was sufficient at the inspection, but the provider was advised to keep staffing levels and lone working under review.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, supervised and knowledgeable about people's needs. People had food choices and access to healthcare, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act processes described in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, detailed and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, relationships, community activities and their wishes for end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as supportive, approachable and committed. Audits, staff meetings and surveys were used to monitor quality and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2019
St Anne's Community Services - Cherry Tree Dispersed was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with staffing and cleanliness to keep under review.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 10 January 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people using the home, a relative, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care plans and medicines records.
The home provided 24-hour care for eight adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind and knowledgeable, medicines were managed safely, and care plans supported people's choices, communication and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe improved to Good, while the other ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in May 2016. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships and cheerful conversations between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's communication, personal care, mobility, food, activities and preferences. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Comprehensive and person-centred care plans were in place for people which detailed their care needs and preferences” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in household tasks, voluntary work, classes, holidays and activities in the local community.
“People had opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed and which met their abilities and interests.” from the report
Strong management and monitoring
Staff said managers listened to them and supported them. Audits and action plans were used to identify and address improvements.
“Procedures and systems were in place to enable the quality of the service to be monitored and assessed” from the report
Staffing and lone working
needs fixingThe home had enough staff during the inspection, but there were vacancies and a reliance on agency staff. One person felt more staff could support people to get out more.
“We recommend the provider keeps staffing levels and lone working under review to ensure people's needs and social needs can always be met in a timely way.” from the report
Cleanliness and equipment
needs fixingInspectors found red mould in a shower room, rust on three shower chairs and damaged kitchen cupboards that were harder to keep clean. The manager acted on these findings during the inspection.
“However, we saw there was a build-up of red mould in one of the shower rooms and three shower chairs had rust on the legs” from the report
As-needed medicine guidance
needs fixingWritten guidance for one as-needed medicine was incomplete. The manager agreed to review it and seek further guidance from the person's GP.
“We identified guidance for staff on how to administer one 'as needed' (PRN) medicines was not fully recorded.” from the report
Access to care records
minorOne person said they did not think they could access their care records. The manager said they would discuss this with the person.
“One person told us they did not think they had access to their care records.” from the report
- 01How have staffing levels, vacancies, agency use and lone working been managed since the inspection?
- 02Have the shower-room mould, rusty shower chairs and damaged kitchen cupboards all been fully resolved?
- 03What written guidance is now in place for the as-needed medicine mentioned in the report?
- 04How can people access their care records, and how is this explained in an accessible way?
- 05How are people's activity plans kept up to date when staffing or support needs change?
This was an inspection of all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the report says Safe improved to Good and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2019 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 Cherry Tree Dispersed
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.