Cherry Blossom Also known as 1-6368461509

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were assessed and planned for. People’s capacity to consent had been assessed, and people were involved in planning their care and support. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to monitor people’s health and wellbeing.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People had been involved in planning their care and reviews where possible. Relatives told us they were involved in the care and support of their loved one and were kept informed of any changes or concerns regarding their wellbeing. One relative told us, “The staff have a very good relationship with my loved one. They tell me you don’t have to worry they look after me good.”

Staff spoken with demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and to how to support them safely. For example, how to monitor a person’s blood sugar levels and allergies people had.

People’s care records were person centred and included how the person wished to be supported. People were having regular check-ups with health professionals. Risk assessments were in place where the person had an identified area of risk. This included control measures to reduce the risk. For example, positive behaviour management plans were in place where needed. The registered manager had reviewed the risk assessments regularly.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us, and we saw staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act by seeking people’s consent prior to supporting them. People told us they were asked for their opinions. One person said, “I’m asked my opinions and thoughts in residents’ meetings and residents do the menu together.” People felt able to speak up if needed. Relatives told us their loved one can make choices for themselves. One relative said, “My loved one makes choices about what they want to wear and what they would like to do. They need a little help with what they eat so they stay healthy. The staff team are good at encouraging my loved one to eat a healthy diet.”

Staff spoken with confirmed they had received MCA training and demonstrated an understanding of the principles and a commitment to adopt the least restrictive interventions when supporting people.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. The registered manager had a system in place for making sure DoLS were well managed. An overview of the system was up to date and included details of any conditions applied to the DoLS.