CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2-8 Orchard Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, infection control and staffing arrangements were found to be safe, although some risk assessments needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision. People's nutritional, physical and mental health needs were supported, with good links to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and interests. People could raise complaints, take part in activities and access the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture and effective quality checks. People and staff said their views were listened to, and the home worked with health professionals and local community services.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some risk assessments needing more detail.
Inspectors visited on 14 May 2019. They spoke with three people, one relative, three care staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, incident records and quality checks.
The home was supporting 12 people with personal and nursing care. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines and health needs were well managed, and there were enough staff during the visit. The home was clean and well maintained.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 9 November 2016. Inspectors said they had no concerns when they planned this inspection.
Safety and risk management
People felt safe and the home had clear strategies to manage risks. Staff had safeguarding training and incidents were reviewed for lessons.
“People felt safe at the service and the risks to their safety were well managed with clear strategies in place to reduce the risks for people.” from the report
Kind, respectful relationships
Staff knew people's likes and dislikes and supported them in a calm and respectful way. People were encouraged to stay independent.
“People had formed positive relationships with staff who knew their needs and preferences.” from the report
Health and nutrition
The home supported people with healthy eating, weight management and access to health professionals. Staff acted quickly when treatment or monitoring was needed.
“People's nutritional and health needs were well managed.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests, including gardening, cooking and flower arranging. Staff also supported people to use the local community and avoid isolation.
“People were encouraged to undertake social activities that reflected their interests.” from the report
Listening to concerns
People knew how to complain and said concerns were handled appropriately. Staff and residents could share views through meetings or one-to-one discussions.
“People were supported to raise complaints which were dealt with appropriately.” from the report
Some risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingInspectors found that some risk assessments did not contain enough detail. The registered manager said this had already been identified in a local authority audit and work had started to improve them.
“We saw some risk assessments required more detail and the registered manager told us this had been highlighted at a recent local authority audit.” from the report
Recent staff departures
minorTwo staff had recently left. This meant staff and managers had worked extra shifts, although inspectors found the staffing level during their visit was suitable.
“This had meant both staff and the management team had been required to undertake extra shifts.” from the report
- 01What extra detail has been added to the risk assessments since the inspection?
- 02How are risks reviewed when a person's health or support needs change?
- 03Have the two staff departures been replaced, and are managers or staff still working extra shifts?
- 04How will you involve my relative in their care plan if formal discussions make them anxious?
- 05What activities and community support would be available to my relative based on their interests?
This was an announced inspection of the care, premises and overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2016
2-8 Orchard Street was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some gaps in staff training and people's written histories.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 October 2016. One inspector spoke with five people, the registered manager, the deputy manager and four support workers. They observed care and checked four people's care records, staff files, training records, policies and quality checks.
The home supported 11 people in three bungalows and a shared communal bungalow. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed correctly, staffing levels met people's needs and risks were reviewed. Staff supported people's health, food choices, independence and access to activities and the community.
Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. The home involved people in care reviews, menus and activities, and had complaint and quality monitoring systems. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Safe medicines
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely. Records showed people received medicines correctly, including medicines taken independently or when needed.
“People received their prescribed medicines and these were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff showed kindness and compassion. They respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and wish to remain independent.
“People were cared for by staff who showed kindness and compassion in the way they supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's physical and mental health needs, routines and preferences. People helped shape their support and activities.
“People who used the service received care and support that was personalised to their individual needs and in a way they wished to be supported.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with GPs, nurses, therapists and psychiatrists. Inspectors saw evidence that staff supported people to maintain their health.
“People had the support they needed to maintain good health and the service worked with healthcare professionals to support people appropriately.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used daily, weekly and monthly checks covering areas such as care records, training, health and safety and the environment.
“The provider had systems and processes that monitored the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Limited life history information
needs fixingStaff knew people well, but written information about their personal histories was very limited. Inspectors said this was important because people's mental health needs could fluctuate.
“Information available to staff about people's life history was very limited and missing in parts.” from the report
Mental health training
needs fixingAll staff spoken with felt their mental health awareness training during induction was basic and wanted more training in this area.
“All staff spoken with said they felt the mental health awareness training they competed during their induction was basic, and that they felt they needed further training in this area.” from the report
Two specific training needs
needs fixingInspectors found staff had not received two areas of training linked to the physical health needs of two people. The manager said this would be arranged as a priority.
“However, we identified two areas of training staff had not received in relation to supporting two people with specific needs associated with their physical health.” from the report
- 01What further mental health awareness training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 02What training was arranged for the two people with specific physical health needs?
- 03How do you make sure each person's written life history is complete and kept up to date?
- 04How can residents access independent advocacy now?
- 05How do you make sure staffing is sufficient when people need extra support during the day or for appointments?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, staff and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 2-8 Orchard Street
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.