Cherry Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. People did not always have access to activities that were person centred and meaningful.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people, but some people said they wanted more time to be able to chat with staff. One person said, “They [care staff] don’t have any spare time. They never come in for a chat. They knock on my door 2 or 3 times a day to ask if I’m okay or want a drink or anything. They’re in and out very quickly.” Another said, “The carers have no time to talk. It would be nice if someone came in for a chat. I’ve talked more to you today than I have for ages.” People confirmed that staff treated them with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. One person said, “The staff are very good to me, especially (Head Senior) who’s brilliant.” Another said, “I say sometimes just leave me be. I like my own company and to have quiet time in my room. The staff respect that.” We observed positive interactions between staff and people., Staff knew people well and there was an established staff team.

Staff were understanding and considerate of people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs, and these were met. People had opportunities to enable them to practice their religion. Care records were not always person-centred. Some further work was needed to ensure people’s strengths, abilities and aspirations were understood by staff and leaders. The manager told us they had already begun reviewing care plans and meeting with people and/or their relatives.

People did not always have access to meaningful activities. There were 2 staff who provided activity within the service. However, feedback suggested that improvements were needed. One person told us, “There’s not much to do. I always go if there’s music to listen to.” Where activity did take place, the recording of this was poor. For example, it was not clear if the activity was enjoyed by people, who participated, and what benefit certain activities had for people. We were also concerned that people who were cared for in bed/in their room did not get equal opportunity to engage in activities. We discussed this with the manager who agreed that the provision of activity needed to improve and they were working on this and planning improvements. Care plans were not always person-centred. For example, they did not describe which activities would be meaningful for individuals. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. People had access to their friends and family. One person said, “My family visit regularly. They take me out [weekly] for tea and I usually go out with them on a [weekend].” Another said, “I use [video calls]. They [family] come when they can.”

We observed staff to be visible, including in communal areas. Most people and relatives told us that people’s needs were met in a timely manner. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. People told us they felt listened to by staff, and would raise any concerns they had. Feedback from health professionals indicated that concerns about people’s health needs were raised promptly by staff, and that staff knew people well. One health professional said, “They call to request visits or discuss residents appropriately and promptly and organise who needs to be seen on the weekly round. They follow any advice correctly from myself or other clinicians.”

There was a system in place to ensure the wellbeing and progression of staff. Training opportunities had improved. Staff told us they felt supported by the new manager and the provider. One staff member said, “Things are so much better than they were. We are encouraged to give feedback, and I now feel valued.” Another told us, “I am supported with supervision by my manager, and we have regular team meetings either care staff, senior, or night staff meetings, or a full team meeting.” The provision of supervisions and appraisals had been increased and there were plans to ensure staff all had regular supervision. This was having a positive effect on how staff felt about their roles and individual contribution. The manager told us, “I’m proud of the care staff, they all care. There is a good culture around the residents.”