Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Cherryfield Homes

Cherryfield House

Petersburg Road, Edgeley, Stockport, SK3 9QZ

Goodpublished 28 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, risk assessments were in place and medicines were generally managed safely, although thickener records were not initially sufficient.
Effective?
Good
Staff had suitable training, induction and competency checks. People could choose when to eat, access healthcare and receive support in line with their needs.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with dignity and respect, knew their likes and dislikes, and supported them to make decisions and maintain their independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs, complaints and end of life wishes.
Well-led?
Good
Inspectors found an open culture, regular quality checks and positive involvement from people and staff. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Cherryfield House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicines and recruitment record issues.

Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 December 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other service records. They spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and outside professionals.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and their care plans reflected their needs and preferences.

Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, clean premises, good access to healthcare and support for people's choices and independence. They also found that some records needed attention. The amount of thickener given was not recorded clearly, and one staff file did not contain a reference from the person's most recent health and social care employer. These points were addressed or followed up during the inspection.

What inspectors praised

  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe and would be listened to if they had concerns. The home had enough staff and a consistent staff team.

    “People told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report

  • Personalised care

    Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, personality and choices about support.

    “People's care plans were detailed and reflective of their individual needs and personality.” from the report

  • Respect and independence

    Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported them to keep or regain independence where possible.

    “Staff encouraged people to take responsibility for meal preparation, for example.” from the report

  • Activities and community links

    People could take part in activities at home and in the community, including hobbies, quizzes, restaurant visits and local events.

    “Staff supported people to engage in activities they enjoyed.” from the report

  • Improved leadership

    Inspectors found a positive culture, regular audits and good working relationships with health and social care professionals.

    “The provider had a clear management structure that monitored the quality of care to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Thickener records

    needs fixing

    The medication records did not show how much thickener was given. The records were updated after the first day of inspection.

    “The recording of thickener was not sufficient. The medication administration records did not show the amount of thickener which was being given.” from the report

  • One recruitment reference

    minor

    One staff file did not contain a reference from the person's most recent employer in health and social care. Management said they would follow this up.

    “We found one example where a reference was not obtained from a person's most recent employer in health and social care.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now record the amount of thickener given to each person?
  2. 02How do you check that every new staff member has the required employment references?
  3. 03What refurbishment work is still outstanding, and how might it affect residents?
  4. 04How will you continue to support people to make decisions and remain independent?
  5. 05How are people's feedback and complaints used to make further improvements?

This inspection looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Cherryfield House

3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Cherryfield House →

  2. January 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.

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.

Another option

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.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Stockport

All in Stockport

Plane Tree Court

Stockport, SK3 · 0.8 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 15 months agocare home

Adswood Lodge

Stockport, SK3 · 0.9 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 18 months agocare home