Cherry Tree Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Consideration was given to the level of care and support a person required prior to their moving into the care home. Assessments were completed by the registered manager whilst visiting the person in their home or current placement. This meant any necessary equipment could be in place prior to admission and only people whose needs could be met were admitted to the home. Care plans were kept under regular monthly review to ensure they remained relevant for the person.

The management team planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care plans and related records showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. Nationally recognised assessment tools were in use such as for skin integrity and the risk of malnutrition. People were positive about the meals provided. For example, we were told, “It’s very nice, very tasty. I’ve got no complaints about the food. I eat downstairs in the dining room, but I suppose I could eat up here [bedroom] if I wanted to eat on my own.”

The management team worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The management team understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. Care staff said they received a handover at the start of each shift which provided them with all necessary information. Staff described a positive team working environment.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care plans included information about medication and past medical history. Care staff confirmed training to meet healthcare needs such as diabetes. They understood what actions they should take in medical emergencies and were, for example, able to describe the signs of a stroke or if a person may have a urinary tract infection. The management team were aware of how to access health and social care professionals should there be a need.

Systems were in place to routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it but these had not always been followed by care staff. People at risk of low food or fluid intake were monitored. However, on review of food and fluid charts we found these were not fully completed. This was discussed with the registered manager who confirmed these records were poorly completed and didn’t give a true reflection of what was offered and consumed. They committed to take action in respect of this. Where there were concerns around people’s food or fluid intake external professionals had been contacted.

People were told about their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Some decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not in place. For example, where people were provided with meals or drinks of a modified texture or medication, where people were unable to make the informed decision and fully understand the need for each medication. The registered manager took immediate action to add these assessments. Care staff understood their responsibilities in relation to mental capacity and consent and that people had the right to refuse offered/required care, in which case they would try later or ask a different staff member to support the person.