Cherry Lodge

Inspectors saw caring interactions. People and relatives generally felt comfortable with staff, who knew people well.

“We observed caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff who gave medicines had training and competency checks.

“There were systems in place for the safe storage, administration and management of medicines.” from the report

The home carried out suitable recruitment checks, including DBS checks.

“Staff were recruited safely and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) were in place.” from the report

There were no restrictions on visiting, and relatives said they could visit as they wished.

“There were no restrictions on visiting and the provider was working within current government guidance.” from the report

Some incidents that indicated abuse had occurred were not reported to the local safeguarding team. Staff were not consistently clear about their responsibilities to report abuse.

“The local safeguarding team had not been made aware of a number of incidents.” from the report

Care records did not fully explain how to manage risks including falls, choking, diabetes and periods of distress. Emergency evacuation arrangements had not been properly tested against the staffing available at night.

“The risks to people's health, safety and welfare had not always been assessed.” from the report

Audits were mainly tick-box checks and did not show what had been reviewed or learned. The provider did not reliably use incidents and accidents to improve care.

“Systems and processes did not effectively monitor quality or keep people safe.” from the report

Food and fluid records did not always show what people had eaten or drunk, including snacks intended to support weight gain. This meant the home could not demonstrate that people were sufficiently hydrated.

“The provider could not demonstrate people were sufficiently hydrated as records were not complete.” from the report