CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by London And Manchester Healthcare (Romiley)
Cherry Tree House
167 Compstall Road, Romiley, Stockport, SK6 4JA
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps in risk-monitoring records and were not always clear that one person received the modified diet advised by a speech and language therapist. Recruitment checks were mostly completed, but some work histories were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported to eat and drink enough, access healthcare and receive care based on their assessed needs. Staff had training, supervision and ongoing support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed providing kind, patient and respectful care. People were supported to make choices and maintain their dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and reflected people's preferences and communication needs. Activities were being developed, and complaints were responded to appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new senior management team had made significant improvements. Audits, checks and action plans were being used to monitor and improve care, although they had not always identified minor recording gaps.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home was still Requires Improvement for safety.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 17 and 23 January 2024. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home had made significant improvements since the last inspection. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and complaints were dealt with appropriately.
Safety was still rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in monitoring records, including records about the consistency of food and drinks. They also found one person was not always clearly receiving the modified diet advised by a speech and language therapist. Recruitment records were not always complete.
The overall rating was Good, with Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led all rated Good. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection, but two recommendations were made about monitoring records and recruitment.
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed, current and tailored to people's needs, preferences and communication needs.
“Care and plans were comprehensive, personalised and contemporaneous that detailed people's current care needs” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw calm, patient and attentive interactions. People and relatives generally said staff were kind and caring.
“People received compassionate care from kind and caring staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new senior management team had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. Regular audits and checks were in place.
“The new senior management team had made significant improvements throughout the home since the last inspection” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Trained staff supported people to receive medicines safely. The home was clean, and staff used protective equipment safely.
“People were supported to receive their medicines and creams safely by trained staff.” from the report
More activities
An activity team and programme had recently been introduced. Inspectors saw people enjoying group and individual activities.
“We observed activities within the home from both an outside entertainer and in-house activities.” from the report
Risk records were incomplete
seriousSome monitoring charts had gaps. It was not always clear whether food and drinks had the required safe consistency, and one person's modified diet was not always clearly followed.
“Charts to monitor individual risks were in place, although we did find some gaps in recordings.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingMost recruitment checks were completed, but some staff records did not include a full work history. The provider corrected the gaps during the inspection.
“We found not all staff had fully completed work history records.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingStaffing levels were suitable during the inspection, but some people and relatives said staff could be busy and call bells could take time to answer.
“When I use the bell, they can be busy and it takes a bit of time for them to come.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople and relatives gave mixed feedback about meals, particularly the pureed diet. The home had made improvements to monitoring nutrition and drinks.
“In particular, people fed back their dissatisfaction with the pureed diet provision.” from the report
Different experience on one unit
needs fixingThe second-floor unit was busier, and inspectors did not always see staff spending the same amount of time with people there.
“However, we found the second floor unit to be busier and did not always see staff having the same time to spend with people.” from the report
- 01What extra checks are now used to make sure food and drink consistencies and other monitoring charts are recorded correctly?
- 02How do you make sure people receive modified diets exactly as advised by speech and language therapists?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty on each floor, especially the second floor, and how quickly are call bells answered?
- 04What changes have been made to the pureed food choices since the inspection?
- 05How do you check that recruitment files contain complete work histories and all required employment checks?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection checking action from the previous inspection, and inspectors considered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Cherry Tree House
10 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.