Cherrywood House

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

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People had care plans, so staff knew how to communicate effectively with them. People who had individual ways of communicating could interact comfortably with staff and others involved in their care and support because staff had the necessary skills to understand them. Staff told us “[Person] likes for you to only speak about specific things, I have learnt their signs too or they will guide you to what they want.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed. Relatives were aware people had care plans and reviews of their care although not all relatives had been involved. A relative told us “I know that they have a care plan, and that it is appropriate.”

Staff had specialised training in how to support people with a learning disability and or autistic people, to meet their assessed needs.

The service 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.

People had access to external health and social care professionals when they needed them. Staff and leaders supported referrals, and whilst they were waiting for them, they worked with people to ensure their needs were met and utilised best practice resources.

Where people had health conditions which required monitoring, there were systems for regular reviews. Where people were at risk of choking and required a modified diet speech and language therapist (SALT) guidelines were in place and were clearly documented in people’s care plans and where food was prepared.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. We observed people being involved in meal and drink preparation when they chose. A relative told us “I have observed both lunch and dinner time when I have been with [person]. There seems to be a wide variety of food, they are well fed, the chef is 4 stars.”

The service 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.

Where people required medical appointments, the service liaised with family and other health professionals and ensured a multi-disciplinary approach was followed. The registered manager and staff team worked closely with health professionals. Any new guidance provided by professionals was added to people’s care plans and shared with staff to ensure it was followed.

A health professional told us of a best interest process they had been involved in for a person who required a medical examination. They told us, “The service had engaged fully with us, the person’s family and the community learning disability nurse. They were a strong advocate for the person.”

The service 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.

Changes in people’s presentation, emotional state or distress, which may show a deterioration in their health or wellbeing, were recognised by staff. Staff acted when they identified changes and escalated them to relevant professionals. A health professional told us, “We have regular contact with the staff at Cherrywood. They seek medical attention appropriately for their residents when needed.”

Some people were being supported to follow restricted diets as per the guidance of health professionals where this was having or could have an impact on their health. Where this was the case care plans explained how staff should support people in this area. Relatives were aware of any dietary changes and requirements to enhance people’s health. One relative told us, “I feel a bit bad about it as they have restricted what [person] eats. I do take them treats when I visit” and another relative said, “Initially (person) could choose what they wanted to eat and drink, but they put on a lot of weight. Now the staff are keeping an eye on them, and they are starting to lose weight, which is great.”

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. One professional told us about a person they supported whose life had improved since living at the service. This included being a ‘fitter and healthier person’, who had good access to community activities and the care given was person centred.

Care plans were set up to include outcomes for people in various areas and included detailed information on how to support people to achieve their outcomes. People had regular meetings with their keyworker where they were able to communicate their wishes. A keyworker is a dedicated staff member assigned to support the person.

People’s support was delivered by staff, in a person-centred way that was specific to their needs. Staff had supported a person who wanted to go on holiday. They explained how the person had been fully engaged by choosing the holiday, saving their money, buying the ticket and planning the activities whilst on holiday. This had made them very happy and they always talked about it in conversation.

The service completed Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) for people who could not make a decision about their care. However, there were some gaps in decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions, or the records had not been fully completed. For example, not all mental capacity assessments showed how the person had been included in the assessment and some best interest decisions did not include people who had been consulted as part of the decision-making process. The management team started to address this during the assessment. The registered manager had an action plan they were working on to ensure the records were brought up to date and recorded all required information.

Where a person had no one to support them with a specific health decision the service had requested the services of Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCA). An IMCA is an advocate who can act for you if you lack capacity to make certain decisions. Sexual safety was considered, and people’s sexual health and sexual needs were considered and supported.

Where people were being deprived of their liberty, referrals had been made to the local authority. The registered manager monitored people’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations and ensured any conditions of authorisations were being met.

Staff were able to explain how they sought consent from people to make day to day decisions in their lives. Staff told us, “We give people information and help them choose. We offer choices in a way they understand.”