We inspected Cherry Trees on 31 October and 5 November 2018.

Cherry Trees is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Cherry Trees provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to eight people over the age of 18 who are living with a learning or physical disability and/or autism. On our first inspection visit, there were 3 people at the service and on our second inspection visit there were 6 people using the service.

At the last inspection in 14 March 2016 the service was rated good overall. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good.

The registered manager provided clear leadership and guidance but there were areas where management’s oversight could be improved. These included, analysis of accidents and incidents, complaints and mental capacity assessments. After the inspection the registered manager developed and sent us an action plan detailing how they were going to implement the improvements needed.

Systems were in place to ensure people remained safe whilst promoting their independence. Risks to people had been adequately identified and measures put in place with guidance for staff to mitigate the risk of harm. We found there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs and a robust process to ensure safe recruitment.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Feedback from relatives and our analysis of records confirmed this. Medicines were administered safely and the systems in place to check and monitor the recording of medicines were up to date. This helped ensure that any errors would be identified in a timely manner. The care home premises were suitably maintained with a range of health and safety checks so the environment remained safe for people.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to have food and drink they liked. There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people's dietary needs and preferences were met.

People and relatives were positive about the staff. People received consistency of care and staff knew the people they supported. People were supported to do activities they were interested in.

People's needs were assessed and plans were developed to identify what care and support people required to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were provided with personalised care and support. People’s needs in relation to the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 were taken into account in the planning of their care. People’s communication needs were considered.

Staff were informed of changes occurring within the home through daily handovers and staff meetings. Staff told us that they received up to date information and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at these meetings.

There was a management structure in place with a team of support workers, deputy managers and registered manager. Staff spoke positively about working at the home. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

The provider gathered feedback from people, staff and professionals and communicated openly with them. The provider responded appropriately to concerns and complaints.

The service was focussed on providing high quality care that enhanced the wellbeing of people and famili

The inspection took place on 14 March 2016 and was unannounced. The service had previously been inspected on 02 January 2014 and met the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulations in operation at that time.

Cherry Trees provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to eight people over the age of 18 who are living with a learning disability and/or autism. Seven people were staying at the facility at the time of our inspection.

The home had a registered manager who had been in post since 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People at the service were safe. Risks to people were managed well and gave people freedom, yet kept them safe. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and they knew what to do should they suspect any form of abuse occurring.

We found the system for ordering, storing and administration of medicines to be safe and staff had regular checks and observations to ensure ongoing competency to administer medicines in addition to refresher training.

The service was working to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. There was one DoLS in place whilst the person stayed at Cherry Trees and ended when the person finished their stay. Four further applications had been made and were waiting consideration from the local authority.

Staff were well supported through regular training and supervision, and they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

The atmosphere in the home was warm, friendly and we observed staff to be caring and supportive to the people staying at Cherry Trees.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported. They were aware of their preferences and interests as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide personalised care.

Care records were person centred, up to date and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs. The care plans included information about peoples’ likes, interests and how best to support the person.

We observed people engaged in activities of their choice throughout the day which included going out into the local community and to day care facilities to ensure continuity of support whilst at the respite service.

We saw evidence of regular environmental audits to ensure the home was safe for the people staying there. The service had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided to ensure the smooth running of the service.

We observed the home was well led and the registered manager promoted an open and transparent culture with an emphasis on improving services to ensure the service provided continued to develop in line with current good practice.

When we visited the home in April 2013 we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for the purposes of obtaining consent from people. We also found that staff personnel records did not hold information in relation to appropriate checks carried out on staff during their recruitment. We said we were concerned about this and that improvements were needed.

We returned on this inspection to check whether improvements had been made.

We looked at two care records of people who used the service and found they contained information which showed both people's consent had been obtained in relation to them receiving personal care. We also found that prior to consent been obtained the service had carried out assessment's of each person's mental capacity.

We looked at two staff personnel records and found they both contained information which held evidence to show that effective recruitment and selection processes were in place.

At the time of our visit, we spoke with two people who used the service. They both told us they were well looked after by staff and the food was good. They said they felt safe when they stayed at the home. One person told us about the activities on offer to people who used the service. They said they enjoyed going out with staff into the local area. They also enjoyed getting involved with domestic tasks when they visited. This person also told us that if there was an activity they didn't want to join in on, they were always given a choice to do something else.

During the course of our visit, we spent a significant amount of time observing the care provided to people who use the services. We did speak with two people cared for at the time of our visit and both had used the service previously. Both had limited verbal communication but they were able to respond and engaged in conversations with us. From our conversations and observations, people appeared relaxed and comfortable in the staff’s presence and within their surroundings.

We looked at people’s care records; we spoke with staff and looked at a range of other information to help us understand people’s experiences, which included the customer, relatives and carer satisfaction results, minutes from resident and relative/carer meetings.