We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cherry Blossom Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Cherry Blossom Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Cherry Blossom Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 70 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 80 people on three floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The service was not allowing any visiting at the service at the time of this inspection, unless for exceptional circumstances for example, if a person was receiving end of life care.
Any person entering the building had their temperature taken, washed their hands, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective equipment (PPE).
The building was clean and free from clutter. The deputy manager told us that staff were undertaking cleaning of high touch points on a regular basis. We witnessed this during our inspection.
People were supported by staff in full PPE, whether that person was COVID-19 positive or negative. This was to protect both staff and people living in the service from spreading infection.
Posters were on display to prompt people and staff to social distance.
Staff changed into their uniform and applied their PPE before starting work. Each floor had their own room for staff to change and store their belongings. Spot checks on staff competencies were in place re handwashing and hand hygiene and PPE assessments.
The deputy manager told us that they were working collaboratively with colleagues from the Local Authority and CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) and were well supported as a result.
Whole home testing was in place for people, visitors and the staff.
Cherry Blossom Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 70 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 80 people on three floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Not all information required to be sent to us was sent to us, the registered manager has rectified this since our inspection.
People were happy with the care home and the staff that provided their care.
People felt safe living at the home because staff knew what they were doing, they had been trained, and cared for people in the way people wanted. Staff assessed and reduced risks as much as possible, and there was equipment in place to help people remain as independent as possible. There were enough staff, and the senior staff also spoke with people regularly. The provider obtained key recruitment checks before new staff started work.
People received their medicines and staff knew how these should be given. Medicine records were completed accurately and with enough detail. Staff supported people with meals and drinks. They used protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons. Staff followed advice from health care professionals and made sure they asked people’s consent before caring for them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Staff worked well together, they understood the provider’s aim to deliver high quality care, which helped people to continue to live as independently as possible.
Staff kept care records up to date and included national guidance if relevant. Complaints and concerns were dealt with and resolved.
Systems in place to monitor how well the home was running were effective. Concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify any issues. Changes were made where issues had occurred elsewhere, so that the risk of a similar incident occurring again was reduced. People were asked their view of the home and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 4 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This unannounced inspection took place on 23 May 2017.
At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Whilst risks were assessed to reduce risks of harm to people, this was not always recorded. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed. However, people’s risk assessments were not always updated after significant events.
Medication was administered by trained and competent staff and people could be assured that they received the medication that they required.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA including the DoLS. The provider was able to demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care. Where people were unable to do so, there were records showing that decisions were being taken in their best interests. DoLS applications had been submitted to the appropriate authority. This meant that people did not have restrictions placed on them without the correct procedures being followed.
Staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. Local safeguarding procedures had been followed when necessary.
There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment process was followed to ensure that people only worked with people after satisfactory checks had been carried out. Staff received the training they required to meet people’s needs and confirmed that they felt supported in their roles.
Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Visitors were made to feel welcome to the home. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
People were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. When needed, people received the support they needed from staff to eat and drink.
Staff supported people to maintain their interests and their links with the local community to promote social inclusion.
Care plans gave staff the information they required to meet people’s individual care and support needs. The care provided was based on people’s preferences.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or the registered manager.
Governance systems had improved since our previous inspection and action plans were now in place to address any shortfalls.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This unannounced inspection took place on 11 March 2016. There were 42 people living at the home at the time of this visit as one floor was not yet occupied. This was the first inspection since the provider registered this service in March 2015.
There was a registered manager in place during this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, decisions were made in their best interest. Applications had been made to the local authorising agencies to lawfully restrict people’s liberty where appropriate. Staff demonstrated to us that they respected people’s choices about how they wished to be supported.
Records were in place for staff to monitor people’s assessed risks, support and care needs. Plans were put in place to minimise people’s identified risks and to assist people to live as safe a life as possible whilst supporting their independence. These records were not always completed in full by staff. This meant that there was an increased risk that risks to people’s health and wellbeing would not be identified promptly.
Arrangements were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed and administered safely. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met. Infection control processes were in place to help reduce the risk of cross contamination.
When needed, people were able to access a range of internal and external health care professionals. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. Staff supported people with their interests and hobbies and to maintain their links with the local community to promote social inclusion. People’s friends and families were encouraged to visit the home and staff made them feel welcome.
People were supported by staff in a compassionate and respectful manner. People’s care and support plans gave guidance to staff on any individual assistance a person required. Records included how people wished to be supported, and what was important to them. These records and reviews of these records did not always document that people or their appropriate relatives had been involved in this process.
Staff understood their responsibility to report any poor care practice or suspicions of harm. There were pre-employment safety checks in place to ensure that all new staff were deemed suitable and safe to work with the people they supported. There was a sufficient number of staff to provide people with safe support and care.
Staff were trained to provide care and support which met people’s individual needs. The standard of staff members’ work performance was reviewed during supervisions, competency checks and appraisals. This was to ensure that staff were confident and competent to provide people’s support and care.
The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the home provided from people living at the home and their relatives. People and their relatives felt listened to and they were able to raise any suggestions or concerns that they had with the registered manager and staff.
Staff meetings took place and staff were encouraged to raise any concerns or suggestions that they may have had. Quality monitoring processes to identify areas of improvement required within the home were in place. However, not all quality monitoring was as effective as they could have been in identifying and driving improvements. Action plans from this monitoring were not always in place for documenting any required improvements to the service provided.