CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cherries
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unclear and inaccurate guidance for some when-required medicines, and medicines administration records that did not accurately show what was prescribed. Other safety arrangements, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had comprehensive assessments, health support and trained staff. Inspectors noted that additional dietary needs were not always recorded clearly and not all staff had yet completed restrictive intervention training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, privacy and dignity. They understood people's communication methods, respected their choices and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised to people's needs, interests and communication styles. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain family contact, try new things and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not identify the medicines and care-record problems found by inspectors. People's support plans did not always contain accurate, specific information, and goals were not always set out in structured plans.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but medicines records and quality checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 January 2022. Two inspectors spoke with staff, a relative and a health professional, observed people as much as they were able to, and checked medicines, staff files, care records and management records. Further evidence was reviewed up to 7 February 2022.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found kind care, good support with communication, health appointments, activities and relationships. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and helped them develop skills.
The main problems were with medicines guidance, medicines records and management checks. Some care information was also not accurate or specific enough. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and responded to their emotional needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and tailored support to their needs, including communication methods, activities and transitions.
“People's care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing and enjoyment of life.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to pursue interests, try new activities and keep in touch with family.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The report describes low staff turnover and consistent support from staff who understood people's needs and communication.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Medicines guidance was unsafe
seriousSome guidance for when-required medicines had the wrong dose and instructions. It did not explain when to give the medicine or what to do if it did not work.
“Guidance had the wrong dosage and instructions. It did not give staff instructions about when to give the medicines and what action to take if they were not effective.” from the report
Medicines records were inaccurate
seriousThe medicines administration records included medicines that were no longer prescribed and did not have the required protocols.
“The MAR charts were not an accurate record of the medicines prescribed.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousManagement checks did not identify the medicines and care-planning shortfalls found during the inspection.
“Governance processes had not been effective in identifying shortfalls found during this inspection.” from the report
Some support plans lacked detail
needs fixingAt least one nutrition plan did not include current specialist advice and contained generic information. Plans for people's goals were not structured enough for staff to follow consistently.
“One person's nutrition support plan did not contain the current advice from their consultant.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the guidance for when-required medicines, and who now checks that the dose and instructions are correct?
- 02How do you make sure medicines administration records always match the medicines currently prescribed?
- 03How are people's dietary needs and specialist advice recorded in their support plans?
- 04How are people's goals written, followed by staff and reviewed to check whether support is working?
- 05What extra quality checks were introduced after the inspection, and what have they found?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control, with further evidence reviewed until 7 February 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 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 The Cherries
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 July 2019.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.