Cherry Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to risk management, infection prevention and control, safeguarding, and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment and the service was no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Training was in progress for staff to ensure safety events were recorded correctly on the electronic care planning system. The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns. Staff told us they felt confident that they would be listened to and gave examples where they had raised safety concerns, and these were promptly addressed by the manager.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service worked with external professionals to ensure people received the correct support and care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns if they didn’t feel safe, or if they had concerns about the safety of other people. Staff told us they were encouraged to raise any concerns they had about people in order to safeguard them and told us they felt confident action would be taken.

The provider did not always work well with people and/or their relatives, to understand and manage risks. Where risks were known, risk assessments were not always put in place promptly. Risk assessments about people’s care were not always person-centred or regularly reviewed with the person, where possible. Information within risk assessments was not always sufficiently detailed to help guide staff and provide support safely and consistently. Staff did however know people well, and this meant that in practice they were able to provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive.

The provider ensured that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, they did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. For example, improvements were needed in relation to individual personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) which would be used in the event of an emergency such as a fire. Some information was not accurate or was missing from people’s documentation to ensure all risk was known. Fire drills were undertaken, but the written account of these was too basic in content to identify where improvements may be needed. The manager had taken steps to improve this in the future.

Improvement was needed with recruitment procedures and oversight of the relevant employment checks for new and existing staff. The new manager had begun reviewing this and found discrepancies with staff references and identification documents. They took action to put risk assessments in place where gaps were found. They were implementing a new system to enable them to have robust oversight of staff employment checks to date, and future recruitment of new staff. There were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role, and this was being extended to include subjects such as dementia and diabetes. Staff told us that they were receiving supervision and appraisals which they welcomed as this had not been the case for a significant period of time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Cleanliness of the environment and food hygiene practices were significantly improved. Personal protective equipment was readily available to staff.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.