Cherrymead

Updated 27 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.

Two inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Cherrymead on 30 May 2018.

Before the inspection we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

During the inspection we spoke to two members of staff, a visiting relative and the registered manager. We observed a lunch time meal, interactions between staff and people, medicines being given and activities. We reviewed menu’s, three people’s care plans and risk assessments, three staff files including supervision records, recruitment and training records, compliments, audits and complaints records.

People living at the service had a range of communication styles we spent time observing the care and support people received in communal areas of the home to be able to understand people’s experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

Following the inspection, the registered manager sent through policies, procedures and audits, house meetings minutes and staff team meeting minutes.

Following the inspection, we received emails from four professionals, these included external professionals that provided activities at Cherrymead and health and social care professionals involved in the care and support of people living at Cherrymead. They gave us permission to quote them in this report.

Updated 27 October 2018

An unannounced comprehensive inspection took place at Cherrymead on 30 May 2018.

Cherrymead is registered to provide accommodation, care and support for up to seven people who live with a learning disability. Some people living at Cherrymead were also living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were seven people living at the home. The care service was 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 which were reflected in the values of the service and in the personalised care provided. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People had their own bedrooms which all had an en-suite bathroom with either a shower or bath. There was a communal lounge, a dining room and kitchen, a conservatory and garden.

The service had a registered manager in place. The registered manager had another management role for the organisation. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we completed our previous inspection in April 2016 there were concerns that not enough staff were present during the day to safely meet people’s needs. Since the last inspection, the provider and registered manager have worked with the local authority to determine safe staffing levels to address this breach of the regulation. We required the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to address this concern. At this inspection, there were sufficient staff numbers during the day to support people in the home and to accompany people if they are going out. Our observations and staff rotas confirmed this. Due to increased complex needs of the people living at Cherrymead, the registered manager and the provider took steps to resolve this by increasing staff numbers at night. We confirmed that the provider had taken sufficient action to address the previous breach of Regulation.

Staff were well trained but training for some staff was not up to date. Audits were done to check the safety and quality of the service but, shortfalls we found in relation to training being out of date for some staff had not been identified.

People and relatives had opportunities to give their views on the services and this feedback was acted on.

The provider had a clear strategy to support the independence of the people. Staff encouraged and promoted independence. 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 home support this practice.

Staff had increased activities provided for people and supported people to go out. The registered manager had taken steps to vary and improve the menu offered.

We observed that staff and people knew each other well and were observed to be caring, patient and gave time for supportive and meaningful interactions.