CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 4 Orchard Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, hygiene, safe admissions and outbreak planning. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Islington Social Services - 4 Orchard Close was inspected but not rated; inspectors found effective infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing plans.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. CQC looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included the use of personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing, shielding, safe admissions and outbreak planning.
The home kept families informed about changing COVID-19 guidance and had worked to restore visits safely. It used regular agency staff to cover absences and said these staff were prevented from working in other care services.
The overall service and Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the report gives findings from a limited inspection rather than a new overall quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections. They were also assured about PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had worked to re-establish visits and planned them so they could take place as safely as possible.
“The provider was facilitating visits to people living at the home by relatives.” from the report
Staff cover
The home used regular agency staff to cover absences and had arrangements to stop those staff working in other care services.
“Regular agency staff were used to cover for any staff absence that occurred.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently planned and carried out safely?
- 02How do you check that agency staff working here are not also working in other care services?
- 03What infection prevention and control arrangements are currently in place?
- 04How do you access testing for people living here and staff?
- 05Which areas of care quality were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2022 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, March 2018
Islington Social Services - 4 Orchard Close was rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring and some previous medicine errors addressed.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 24 October 2017 without warning. They spoke with one person, relatives, a healthcare professional, the manager and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints, safety records and quality checks.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and complex health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, received effective and responsive care, and benefited from strong leadership. Staff knew people well and supported them in a kind and individual way.
The home remained Good overall, as it had been at the previous inspection in October 2015. Caring improved from Good to Outstanding. Inspectors found the home met all the legal requirements they looked at and was not in breach of any regulations.
Highly personal care
Staff took time to understand people as individuals, including those with limited communication. They adapted support around people's wishes rather than making people fit set procedures.
“The service was tailored to not only meet people's needs but to do so in the most caring and unique way possible” from the report
Strong communication
Staff used different methods, including objects, pictures, communication boards and signs, to help people express themselves and take part in their care.
“We saw that staff were attentive with people and treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Support during hospital stays
The home provided one-to-one support when people needed to stay in hospital. Staff helped medical teams understand people's individual needs.
“The staff team went the extra mile and responded flexibly to enable this support to be provided throughout the days and nights of their hospital stay.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, maintain family contact and experience ordinary community life. Staff also helped people visit family members.
“The staff team put significant time and effort to support people and their families to maintain contact.” from the report
Staff training and oversight
Training, supervision and refresher training were monitored. The provider also carried out regular audits and sought feedback about the service.
“The provider carried out regular audits of all aspects of the service.” from the report
Previous medicine errors
needs fixingThere had been a couple of medicine errors in the year before the inspection. No one was harmed, and the provider responded with further action, including retraining and reassessment.
“Although there had been a couple of errors in the last year these had fortunately not resulted in any harm” from the report
Agency staff familiarity
minorOne relative said agency staff did not know their relative as well as regular staff. Inspectors still rated the service safe and found enough staff to provide the required support.
“sometimes there are agency staff in the home which don't know [relative] as well” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to prevent medicine errors, and how are staff's medicine skills reassessed?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication methods, health needs and routines?
- 03How will the change of manager affect the people living in the home and their families?
- 04How are families involved when care plans are reviewed or people's needs change?
- 05What activities and community opportunities are currently available for the person I am considering placing here?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with a visit to the home on 18 October and telephone calls to relatives on 24 October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2018 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 4 Orchard Close
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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 Islington
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.