Cherry Garden

The service was registered to provide support to people living with a learning disability, although no one had a diagnosis at the time of the assessment. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to community facilities. We were assured the provider and staff demonstrated these principles.

We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People received care and support in an environment where there were systems and processes in place to keep them safe. Leaders had identified opportunities to ensure the environment would be dementia friendly following redecoration.

Care was designed to promote people’s choice and independence. Records included risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing which were managed. Medicines were administered safely. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. We found that staffing levels were generally sufficient to meet people’s needs, however observations during lunchtime indicated staff were busy and this reduced opportunities for meaningful engagement. Leaders acknowledged these pressures and agreed to review staffing arrangements.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found that staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
There was a positive culture within the service. Leaders were approachable and receptive to feedback.