CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Goodwood Orchard Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but safety checks and leadership systems did not always identify risks.
This was a focused inspection on 8 September 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about restrictive practices. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found hazards involving fire doors, wheelchairs, an unlocked cupboard with hazardous substances and the garden. They also found some hygiene problems and risk assessments that were not reviewed on time. The manager acted immediately or shortly afterwards to put these issues right.
People and relatives said they felt safe and were treated well. Staff understood people's needs, safeguarding and infection control. Medicines were administered safely, staffing was sufficient, and the home had a positive atmosphere.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The manager had also added an extra carer in the morning.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines
Staff administered medicines safely. Records were accurate and checks were in place to identify mistakes.
“Medication administration records (MAR) in use were completed accurately by staff.” from the report
Infection control
The home had updated its infection control policy and COVID-19 plan. Staff had been trained and regularly briefed about protective equipment.
“The service had a clear infection control policy, this was up to date and had been updated in response to COVID-19.” from the report
Positive relationships
People, relatives and staff described a supportive atmosphere and good communication from the manager and care team.
“The service had a positive and open atmosphere.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousInspectors found a fire door blocked by a wheelchair, another fire door that did not close properly, an unlocked cupboard containing hazardous substances and hazards in the garden. These issues could have caused harm, although the manager acted to fix them.
“A cupboard containing hazardous substances was seen unlocked by inspectors.” from the report
Hygiene problems
needs fixingSome toilet flooring needed attention and parts of the lounge needed cleaning. The manager acted after the inspection.
“Inspectors found some hygiene issues in the premises.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not identified the environmental risks found during the inspection. Some risk assessments were also overdue for review.
“Systems and processes had not identified the concerns inspectors found with regards to the environment during this inspection.” from the report
Care planning system
needs fixingThe electronic care planning system was not giving the manager enough oversight or useful reports. A replacement system had started but still needed to become established in daily practice.
“It was not providing the oversight and responsive reporting as required.” from the report
- 01Have all the fire door, garden, flooring and cleaning issues found in this inspection been fully repaired, and how are they checked now?
- 02How do you make sure cupboards containing hazardous substances remain locked and inaccessible to residents?
- 03How often are residents' risk assessments reviewed, and how do you ensure reviews are not missed?
- 04Has the replacement care planning system been fully introduced, and how does it give managers better oversight?
- 05How are responsibilities shared among staff so that the manager is not carrying all quality and safety checks?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 2020 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safer systems and kind, personalised care after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 21 November 2019. The inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were now assessed and reviewed, medicines were stored and recorded safely, and there were enough trained staff.
People were treated kindly and with respect. They had choices about food, routines and activities, and received support with healthcare and communication. The home was clean, complaints were investigated, and managers used audits and feedback to make improvements.
The previous inspection, published in November 2018, rated the home Requires Improvement because risk monitoring, medicines systems and quality monitoring needed improvement. Inspectors found these areas had improved. Some smaller issues remained, including a lack of private space for confidential meetings and complaints not always being analysed.
Improved safety
The home had improved its approach to assessing and reviewing risks. Staff had clear guidance about equipment and actions needed to keep people safe.
“At this inspection people told us they felt safe with the support provided by staff.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored safely and administration records were complete. Staff were trained and followed advice about people's individual medicines needs.
“Medicines were stored securely and within the recommended temperature range to ensure medicines remained effective.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. Staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We witnessed many caring and loving interactions between staff and the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, histories, preferences and communication needs. Care plans were being updated with more personal details.
“People continued to receive personalised care that met their needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in group or individual activities and maintain links with relatives, friends and the local community.
“People had the opportunity to socialise and do activities together or individually.” from the report
Management improvements
Quality checks and action plans were being used more effectively than at the previous inspection. Staff and relatives felt the service was well-led.
“At this inspection the quality checks and audits were completed regularly.” from the report
Private meeting space
needs fixingThere was no suitable private area for confidential meetings at the time of inspection. The home had plans to create a separate office.
“There was a lack of private areas for confidential meetings.” from the report
Complaint analysis
minorComplaints were investigated and answered, but they were not always analysed to identify wider patterns. The manager addressed this during the inspection.
“Complaints were not always analysed, which was addressed by the registered manager immediately.” from the report
End of life training
minorFurther evidence-based end of life care training had been planned but was not yet complete. Ask what training staff have now received.
“Additional evidence-based end of life care training had been planned for all staff to complete” from the report
- 01Has the planned private office or meeting room now been created, and where can confidential conversations take place?
- 02How are complaints now analysed for patterns and shared learning?
- 03What end of life care training have all staff completed since the inspection?
- 04How are risks and medicines records reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05How will you record and regularly update my relative's personal preferences, routines and communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, prompted partly by concerns about care quality, staffing, training and management; inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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.
Every inspection of Goodwood Orchard Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.