The inspection took place on 16 February 2016 and was unannounced. Cherrymead provides care and accommodation for up to seven people. There were seven people aged 51 to 73 years living at the home when we inspected. The service specialises in the care of adults with a learning disability.
All bedrooms were single and each had an en-suite bathroom with either a shower or bath. There was a communal lounge, dining room and a conservatory which people were observed using.
The service had a registered manager who also had another management role for the organisation so worked part time at Cherrymead for between two and four days a week. 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 service did not use a dependency tool to assess the level of staffing needed to meet people’s needs. On the day of the inspection we observed there were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs.
Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People and their relatives said the staff provided safe care.
Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.
People received their medicines safely.
Staff were well trained and supervised and had access to a range of relevant training courses, including nationally recognised qualifications.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment assessments were carried out in line with the MCA and its associated Code of Practice. DoLS applications had been made where people’s liberty was restricted for reasons of safety.
There was a choice of food and people were involved in planning the menus. People’s nutritional needs were assessed so the right action could be taken if people were at risk of malnutrition.
People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed and people received regular health checks.
Staff were caring and interacted well with people. A relative told us, “The staff care is absolutely fabulous.” People were observed to be comfortable approaching staff who responded to them with understanding and kindness.
Care was provided to people based on their individual needs which we call person centred care. People’s preferences and individual needs were acknowledged in the assessment of their needs and in how care was provided. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s changing needs.
People were supported to attend a range of meaningful activities including community facilities.
The service had an effective complaints procedure. Complaints were looked into and responded to.
People and their relatives were able to give their views on the service.
The service did not have a system for delegating a staff member to be operationally responsible for the service in the absence of the registered manager; staff and a relative were unclear about who was in charge during these periods. This was addressed following the inspection so there was a ‘lead’ staff member in charge when the registered manager was not present.
There were a number of systems for checking the safety and effectiveness of the service such as regular audits.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.