Cherry Tree Nursing Home

People's experience of using this service: • During our previous inspection in February 2018 we identified areas that required improvements. These included records that were not up to date and accurate, and a lack of management oversight and quality assurance. During this inspection we found improvements had been made in all areas. The service has been awarded a rating of good in all domains. • We found systems were in place to ensure the safety of people living in the service. Records were up to date, and risk assessments had been completed to minimise risks to people. • Checks had been completed on essential safety apparatus such as fire protection equipment and hoists. Services such as gas and electricity had been maintained. • People's nutritional and dietary needs were assessed, documented and care was provided in line with their needs. External professional provided professional advice when needed. • Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where appropriate, advocates were employed to support people with making choices about their lives. • Information about people was being recorded in a respectful and dignified way. Records were up to date and clear in their content whilst providing appropriate direction for staff in how to care for people. People's health care needs were monitored. • People were treated equally by the staff. Training was provided to staff the area of equality and diversity. • Staff told us they felt supported by senior staff. The staff in the service were caring. They told us they worked well as a team. They respected each other and supported each other. They received support from the provider and the registered manager. They also received support through regular training, supervision and team meetings. • Staff were trained and knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Where concerns had been raised these had been dealt with appropriately. • A recruitment system was in place that minimised the risk of unsafe candidates being employed. • Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of by trained staff. However, we observed staff signing to indicate they had administered medicines before doing so. This is not safe practice. We have made a recommendation about medicine training for staff. • Effective quality assurance tools were in place to drive forward improvements, these had been used and their impact was apparent. • People spoke positively about their experience of living in the service. Comments included "You do feel safe here, I do, seriously. I love this room and I feel safe here. I feel cared for and looked after, they (staff) are there for you and they don't go missing".

• Where possible people could feedback to the provider and share ideas for improvement. This could be done daily via the senior staff or through meetings or filling in questionnaires. • Activities were available to people. A new activity coordinator had been employed to develop this area of the service. • Complaints were dealt with effectively and efficiently.