Archived: Cherrycroft

Updated 5 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 11 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed previous reports and notifications that are held on the CQC database. Notifications are important events that the service must let the CQC know about by law. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts and information received from a local authority.

During the inspection we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

During our inspection we spoke with two people, a relative and observed three people. We spoke with the manager and three care workers. We reviewed two care files and medication records, two staff recruitment files, audits and policies held at the service.

Updated 5 October 2018

We inspected Cherrycroft on the 11 September 2018.

Cherrycroft is a residential care home for up to ten people with learning disabilities and may have mental health issues. At the time of our inspection eight people were using the service. The service had spacious living areas and was set over two floors with a lift in place should this be needed. The service was set in a residential area with easy access to the local community and has a large garden. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.