Cherry Blossom Also known as 1-6368461509

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

People told us they felt safe. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited safely. The management team promoted a positive culture where support and care of people was the highest priority. Individual and environmental risks were assessed and regularly reviewed. People received their medicines safely, when needed, by staff trained in medicines management. Where accidents or incidents had occurred, action was taken to reduce the chance of re-occurrence and any learning was shared with the staff team.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us communication with the registered manager was good. The staff team demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were supported to achieve good outcomes. One relative told us, “The manager is great, they listen to my concerns and acts accordingly. My loved one can become depressed and needs extra support at this time. This is arranged without any fuss.”

Staff told us they felt supported and able to raise any concerns with the management team and were confident action would be taken. Staff received training suitable to their role to meet people's need safely and demonstrated an understanding around reporting incidents and how to report. The management team understood the need to be open and honest when things went wrong in line with their responsibilities under the duty of candour.

Staff understood their responsibility to be open and honest and understood the importance of reporting accidents and incidents. These were reviewed by the management team to identify any trends or patterns so actions could be taken to mitigate emerging risks. Any lessons learnt were discussed in team meetings. The newly appointed registered manager had identified some areas for improvement in the service prior to our assessment for example, reviewing people’s care plans and an action plan was in place to drive forward these improvements.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “If I was unhappy about something I would tell the manager.” Relatives felt their loved ones were safe and enjoyed living at the home and all knew how to raise concerns, if they had any.

Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. One staff member said, “If a person was at harm, I would report it to the manager immediately.” Another staff member told us, “Safeguarding is ensuring the people we support are safe and free from harm.” The registered manager had made appropriate alerts to the Local Authority (LA) and Care Quality Commission (CQC).

We observed staff support people when they became anxious and offered reassurance to help them feel safe.

Staff were up to date with their safeguarding training. The management team understood their responsibility to report any concerns to the local authority and to CQC to ensure any allegations or suspected abuse were investigated. There was a safeguarding policy in place, this had up to date guidance for staff and guided staff how to make contact in the event of a safeguarding. The registered manager had a process in place to monitor staff training.

People told us staff supported them to help manage risks. One person told us; “Staff support me to reduce my risky behaviours when I get anxious and help me with my coping strategies”. Relatives told us, “Staff supported [Person] safely and understood their complex needs and kept them safe, by developing positive relationships with them and getting to really know them.”

Staff spoken with understood the risks associated with people’s care. For example, staff described how a person was allergic to latex, staff understood the importance around using non latex gloves and sharing this information with any health professionals when supporting them to attend health care appointments. Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and well managed. For example, where risks had been identified for a person at risk of choking or falls clear guidance was in place for staff to follow.

During our visit staff were observed to be following people’s risk management plans. For example, people always remained in staff’s eye line when they had got up for the day. People were also given the space to move around freely.

People who wished to book their own health appointments were supported to do so. This was monitored by staff to ensure any risks and concerns were not missed and people continued to achieve good outcomes. Where appropriate care plans had documented agreements in place with the person to help monitor and reduce the risk of self-harming. Risk assessments were in place to inform staff how to provide safe care and were regularly reviewed alongside the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us staff were “Good and caring”. Relatives said, “There were enough staff and appeared well trained”.

Staff told us they received training and supervision appropriate for their role. One staff member told us, “I like it at the service, it is a nice environment, and we always have enough staff on shift.” Another said, “The training is good.” Records viewed showed staff were up to date with their training.

During our visit we observed lots of positive interactions, people appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff supporting them. Staff were available when people needed them during our visit and people’s requests for assistance were responded to promptly.

Rotas demonstrated staffing levels were maintained and people were being supported by a consistent staff team. Agency staff were not used. Staff were recruited safely. The provider sought references and completed DBS checks. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People confirmed they received their medicines as needed.

Staff told us they received medicines training and were assessed as competent before supporting people with their medicines.

Clear guidance was in place which informed staff when ‘as required’ and time specific medicines needed to be given. People had regular reviews of their medicines to ensure they were prescribed the most effective medicines to support their health and wellbeing. Processes and systems were in place to ensure people’s medicines were ordered, stored, and disposed of safely in line with best practice guidance. Medicine records viewed were fully completed and up to date. Records viewed showed staff had received medicines training and their competencies were regularly checked.