Cherry Tree House

Who the service is for

Cherry Tree House provides support to younger adults, older adults, people living with dementia and people with substance misuse problems.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 11 to 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. 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 safe care and treatment and were protected from avoidable harm.

We checked and found that staff and managers worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions; they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Processes were in place to record and report safeguarding concerns. Staff and managers understood these processes and knew how to identify signs of abuse and escalate concerns where required. A dedicated safeguarding and quality team completed regular audits, and learning was shared collaboratively across the organisation.

Staff supported people to manage risks and remain safe in their daily lives. We identified improvements were needed to ensure all appropriate risk assessments for people were in place and up to date.

The environment was safe, and managers worked in partnership with the housing provider to ensure the accommodation was well maintained. Fire evacuation procedures were in place, and staff knew how to support people to evacuate safely. We found some Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan’s (PEEPs) required updating to ensure they reflected people’s current needs. The registered manager took immediate action to address this.

Staff were recruited safely and received appropriate training to carry out their roles. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs, and on-call systems were in place.

Staff supported people safely with their medicines where appropriate. Medicines were stored securely, and appropriate risk assessments were in place. However, improvements were required to ensure guidance for medicines prescribed ‘when required’ was in place and contained person centred information for staff to follow.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, and staff respected their privacy and dignity. Care was delivered by a consistent staff team who knew people well, including their needs and preferences. People had choice and control over their care, daily routines, meal and activities. One staff member told us, “We have lots of time to build relationships. We get to know people and their preferences; they are all different.”

Care plans contained some person-centred information which reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. Improvements were needed to ensure all care plans were comprehensive, up to date, and included people’s goals.

The service had developed good relationships with health and social care professionals, and people were supported to access external services when required.

Systems were in place to ensure people received their planned care, and staff worked flexibly to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt able to raise any concerns and were confident they would be listened to. One staff member told us, “[Managers] are always asking us for feedback, and how we think things are going.” Staff provided positive feedback about working at the service. They felt supported and valued by the management team, who were visible, approachable, and actively involved across the service.

The provider had a clear vision and set of values that staff and managers understood and promoted. The provider and management team fostered a positive culture within the service. One staff member told us, “The culture is good. We are a good team, and staff are kind to people.”

Governance systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including audits completed by managers and senior managers. We found these systems required further strengthening to ensure they consistently identified risks and areas for improvement. For example, care plan audits had not identified the improvements required in relation to care plans and risk assessments.