Cherry Care Services Limited - Northampton

As the service supports people with a learning disability and autistic people, we assessed them against our guidance for supporting people with a learning disability or autism, Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The service was mostly working in line with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. However, additional work was required to ensure people were consistently supported to have choice, control or meaningful involvement in their care. People were not always supported to identify and plan for future goals and aspirations.

The service was rated good overall.

People spoke positively about the support they received and told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. Feedback from people and relatives was positive, and there was evidence that staff knew people well and supported them in accordance with their preferences, routines and wishes. Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals and other agencies to help ensure people experienced positive outcomes and continuity of care.

Staff were recruited safely, received regular supervision and training, and described a positive and supportive culture. There were effective arrangements in place to manage risks associated with the environment, equipment and infection prevention and control. Processes were in place to learn from incidents, complaints and feedback, and staff told us that learning was shared across the service. Leaders were visible and approachable, and people and staff consistently spoke positively about the management team. One staff member said, “The manager is approachable and attentive to staff and people.”

However, improvements were needed to ensure governance systems were fully effective in identifying and addressing all areas requiring development. Whilst audits and monitoring processes were in place, these had not consistently identified some of the concerns found during this assessment. Some risk assessments lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in managing risks specific to the individual. Improvements were also needed to ensure that people's involvement in decisions about their care, communication needs, future planning and outcomes monitoring were consistently evidenced. In addition, further work was required to strengthen processes around safeguarding documentation, mental capacity assessments and some delegated healthcare competencies.

Despite these areas for improvement, we did not identify evidence that people had experienced avoidable harm or that people were placed at significant risk because of the issues found. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs, people told us they felt safe and well supported, and the concerns identified related primarily to the quality and consistency of recording, oversight and documentation. Service leaders were aware of several of the areas requiring development and had already begun taking action to address them.