Recipient

Cherry Orchard Nursing Home, Dagenham

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Sep 2021•Latest report 16 Sep 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Nursing home. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Cherry Orchard Nursing Home, Dagenham linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Eldine Loretta Lashley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Eldine Loretta Lashley suffered an unwitnessed fall at a care home on 6 April 2021, sustaining a subdural haemorrhage, and died at home on 14 April 2021 despite medical intervention. Concerns were raised that her mobility care plan was not updated to reflect increased monitoring needs and that progress notes did not accurately record the frequency of checks carried out.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cherry Orchard Nursing Home, Dagenham; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to accurately record the frequency of checks in progress notes

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Mrs Lashley's mobility care plan was not updated in response to developments in her care needs – specifically she need to observe her more frequently than once per hour. 2. Progress notes created by nursing and care staff did not accurately reflect the frequency of checks carried out on Mrs Lashley. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cherry Orchard Nursing Home, Dagenham; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to update mobility care plans in response to changing care needs

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Mrs Lashley's mobility care plan was not updated in response to developments in her care needs – specifically she need to observe her more frequently than once per hour. 2. Progress notes created by nursing and care staff did not accurately reflect the frequency of checks carried out on Mrs Lashley. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026