CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cherry Tree
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were being managed safely.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found good practice in preventing infections. Visitors were screened, had temperature checks and needed a negative lateral flow test. Staff used protective equipment, residents who tested positive were isolated, and new residents were tested and usually isolated for 14 days where possible.
Inspectors were assured about testing, vaccination, protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and visits. The home had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the quality of care across all five areas.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened on arrival, checked for a temperature and required to show a negative test. Visiting professionals also had to show proof of vaccination.
“All visitors were asked to complete a COVID-19 screening form on arrival, and had their temperature checked.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors observed staff following protective equipment and social distancing guidance. The home also had dedicated areas for putting on and removing protective equipment.
“Our observations during the inspection confirmed staff were adhering to PPE and social distancing guidance.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
The home reported regular COVID-19 testing for staff and maintained records of testing and vaccination for staff and residents.
“The provider maintained a vaccination and testing register for staff and service users.” from the report
Managing infection outbreaks
People who tested positive were isolated and allocated a dedicated carer. New residents were tested on admission and usually isolated where possible.
“All COVID-19 positive service users were isolated according to Public Health England Guidelines.” from the report
Communication with families
The home kept in touch with family members and friends using several methods and offered both virtual and in-person visits.
“The provider kept in touch with family members and people's friends through emails, phone and text messages.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention, testing and protective equipment arrangements changed since the inspection in January 2022?
- 02How do you currently manage visits if there is an infection outbreak or a visitor has symptoms?
- 03What happens when a new resident arrives, including testing and any period of isolation?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures and make sure residents' care is not affected?
- 05How do you keep families informed if a resident tests positive or visiting arrangements change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous fire safety issues corrected.
The unannounced inspection took place on 24 January 2019. One inspector reviewed the provider's information and notifications, examined records for all three residents, observed care, and spoke with staff and relatives. Some residents could not or did not want to speak with the inspector.
The home supported three adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, with space for up to four people. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. People were helped to make choices, build independence, stay healthy and take part in activities in the community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was still rated Good, the same as at the 2016 inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans were developed with people and relatives and reflected physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Staff knew people's routines, preferences and communication needs.
“People received personalised care because the process of assessing their needs was thorough and care plans were developed with people and relative's input.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw patient and respectful interactions. Staff protected privacy and dignity and supported people to express their views.
“We observed that staff were patient and respectful in their interaction with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, prepare food where possible and build independent living skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Active lives
People were supported to go out, maintain family contact and take part in activities that matched their interests, including cycling and voluntary work.
“People led full and active lives because staff supported them to be involved in daily activities which they enjoyed.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used audits and action plans to monitor care and address problems. Records were comprehensive and up to date.
“Internal auditing and monitoring processes were in place at manager and provider level to identify any shortfalls and to drive improvement.” from the report
A missed medicine dose
needs fixingThe report says a staff member once failed to give a person's medicine at the due time. The home responded with reminders and an alarm, and medicine records and stock checks were accurate during the inspection.
“For example, after a staff member had failed to give a person their medicine at the time it was due reminders were placed on the cupboard where medicines were stored.” from the report
Previous fire safety deficiencies
minorA recent fire risk assessment had identified problems with fire safety. Inspectors said prompt action had been taken to put them right.
“For examples, a recent fire risk assessment had identified deficiencies in fire safety.” from the report
- 01What safeguards are now in place to prevent a medicine being given late or missed?
- 02When was the latest fire risk assessment, and have all actions from it been completed?
- 03How will my relative's communication needs, preferences and routines be recorded and reviewed?
- 04How will you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities outside the home?
- 05How will my relative and our family give feedback or make a complaint, and how will we be told what happened?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including care, premises, records and management; the inspection covered three residents, while some residents could not or did not want to give their views directly. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 The Cherry Tree
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2015.
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 Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.