Cherrywood House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff understood what person-centred care meant and knew people’s preferred routines and activities well. Where people were unable to verbally tell staff what they liked, staff told us how they involved the person. Staff showed us how people who did not communicate verbally, chose which activity they wanted to do for the day. Staff told us, “We ask people what they would like to do, and they show us through pictures” and “We use storyboards to help us understand people’s life history and what is important to them.”

People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. We observed people being offered different choices of activity for the day. Some people preferred more of a routine; one person told us he was going to the barbers. This was something they liked to do on a set day of the week. Where people required support to eat and drink this was provided at people’s own pace and they were not rushed. The home’s atmosphere was relaxed.

The service had recently moved from a paper-based care planning system to a computer system. Some people’s care plans required updating with more comprehensive information, for example around people’s likes and dislikes. The registered manager started to address this during our assessment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of the people who lived there. The service knew how to access appropriate support for people and at the right time.

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

The registered manager had met with the local GP service to ensure people were able to access GP appointments when needed, for example some people could not attend a GP surgery so a practitioner from the surgery now visited the home. People now had access to a dentist and a chiropodist. The service worked closely with the local learning disabilities team reviewing people’s medicines as required. Staff supported people with appointments and monitoring health conditions, staff were familiar with people and were able to recognise when people were unwell and sought health input. Staff told us information was shared with them when people had attended appointments. One staff member said, “Information is in [person’s] care plan, and we are told by management when they have seen a doctor.”

Information was provided for people in appropriate formats.

The registered manager told us they used a range of pictures and symbols to support people’s communication. The service was working on providing photos of daily meal choices for people, we observed people being offered choice in this way.

The registered manager told us they were in regular contact with people’s relatives and kept them updated when people’s care needs changed. A relative said, “I know the manager and deputy. I can call them anytime, they are easy to get hold of, and I can email them at the house.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The service collected feedback in various ways from people and their relatives. ‘Our voice’ meetings for people were held, and different forms of communication were incorporated into meetings to make them more inclusive. Relatives told us they felt free to raise any issues with the registered manager, they were asked for their feedback annually and said they were satisfied with communication. Relatives said, “Yes, I am asked for feedback annually. I know the manager; they are very adaptable” and “I know the manager’s name. I will phone or email them, communication is good.” The provider had a complaints policy, information was displayed for relatives about how to complain. During our assessment we did not see an easy read complaints notice that gave information to people about how they could complain. The registered manager assured us following the assessment this had now been rectified.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported by staff who were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support. Some people who went out into the community carried specific cards that staff could use should an urgent situation arise.

Where a person had no one to help represent them the service had started the process of making a referral for the person to have access to an advocate. This was important to ensure the person had someone to help represent their views, who was independent of the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment, in response to this.

The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support them effectively.

They demonstrated their understanding of how people may be vulnerable to experiencing inequalities and provided support to overcome this. For example, we were able to see how managers and staff had worked with medical services such as GPs to ensure treatment took account of people’s diverse needs and triggers for distress. This enabled people to experience equitable access to services and good outcomes to help maintain their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to understand and make decisions about their future care and support, and plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People and their families had identified their wishes for what they wanted to happen when they died, these were recorded in their care plan.