Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Little Orchard

Goodpublished 31 July 2025, 14 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in safety checks and management oversight.

This was a scheduled, unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors observed care, spoke with a person, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. Staff generally knew people well, treated them kindly and supported their health, choices, communication, activities and contact with relatives.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that some care plans were not followed, records were not always checked, and equipment settings were not monitored properly. The provider breached Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment.

The manager had made improvements since taking up the role, including rewriting care plans and improving relatives' involvement. However, the provider must send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and inspect again.

What inspectors praised
  • Detailed care planning

    People's needs, communication and sensory support were recorded in detailed care plans. Relatives were increasingly involved in developing them.

    “The care plans at Little Orchard were extensive, detailed and informative.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People appeared at ease with staff, and inspectors saw mostly kind interactions. Personal care was delivered privately and relatives were positive about people's cleanliness and care.

    “We saw kind and caring interactions by staff who were clearly fond of people they supported” from the report
  • Personalised activities and choices

    People were supported to choose activities, make drinks, access the community and maintain important relationships. Staff adapted support around individual interests and communication.

    “People were supported to participate in activities of daily living in a way that was relevant to them.” from the report
  • Manager making improvements

    The manager had rewritten care plans, increased relatives' involvement and introduced regular staff meetings. Staff and relatives described improvements in the home's atmosphere and leadership.

    “The registered manager had been in post for approximately eight months and had made a number of improvements to the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Care plans and equipment not always followed

    serious

    An epilepsy care plan was not consistently followed, seizure records were unclear, and an air mattress was not checked or set to the person's updated needs. This was a breach of Regulation 12.

    “The failure to follow epilepsy care plans and review records of care delivery and to ensure the accurate setting of equipment was a breach of Regulation 12” from the report
  • Weak checks and audits

    needs fixing

    Records showing unsafe fridge temperatures and some low food temperatures had not been audited. A changed swallowing instruction was also not transferred into the relevant care plans.

    “The inspection identified a number of concerns that had not be identified through the provider's or managers own checks and audits.” from the report
  • Medicines procedures need review

    needs fixing

    Some medicines guidance did not match behaviour plans, and the home could not assure inspectors that medicines given with food remained effective. CQC recommended reviewing medicines records and procedures.

    “We recommend a review of medicine records and procedures to ensure plans and practice are fully aligned.” from the report
  • Communication and PPE concerns

    needs fixing

    Some staff could not demonstrate clear spoken English, which could affect communication with people. Inspectors also saw PPE not being changed between rooms and one visitor without a face mask.

    “We were concerned that some staff were not able to demonstrate that they could communicate clearly in English.” from the report
  • Activity plans lacked detail

    minor

    Some activity planners were too general and one listed an activity that the person could not take part in. Inspectors said the planners needed to be more specific and personalised.

    “We were concerned that not all activity planners were personalised as in one example, we saw an activity listed that the person would not have been able to participate in.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What actions have you taken to make sure epilepsy care plans are followed and seizure records are completed clearly?
  2. 02How do you now check air mattress settings and other equipment after a person's needs or weight changes?
  3. 03How are care records, fridge temperatures, food temperatures and updated swallowing plans audited and acted on?
  4. 04What training or checks have been introduced to make sure all staff can communicate clearly in English and use PPE safely?
  5. 05How have activity planners been made more detailed and personalised?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the service after it was newly registered under a different provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Little Orchard

3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. May 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Little Orchard →

  2. January 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. June 2017Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. December 2020

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.