CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard Close Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment and medicines systems were in place. The home was clean, and staff knew how to respond to accidents, incidents and concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before stays and staff had relevant training and supervision. Inspectors found this area had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff positively. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and dignity, and involved them in decisions about their care and daily activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs and preferences. People were supported to communicate, choose activities, raise concerns and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture. Managers used audits, feedback, incident records and staff meetings to monitor quality and improve the service.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Orchard Close Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised respite care and improvements in staff training.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 09 January 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, managers and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home provides short-term respite care for up to 15 adults with a learning disability. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported in ways that reflected their choices, communication needs and independence. Staff supported health appointments, eating and drinking, activities and contact with families.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Effective care improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2017. The other four ratings stayed Good.
Safe medicines support
Medicines systems were organised and checked regularly. People could also be supported to manage their own medicines after an individual risk assessment.
“Medicines administration systems were robust and well organised to help ensure people received their medicines when required.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere and found that staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff knew the people they supported well and had developed positive caring relationships with them.” from the report
Personalised communication
Communication needs were recorded and staff used methods such as pictures and signs to help people make choices.
“Each person had their communication needs assessed and documented as part of their care and support plan and was supported accordingly.” from the report
Improved staff training records
The home introduced a new system to monitor training. Inspectors found evidence of relevant training, updates and regular supervision.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Choice of activities
People were involved in choosing activities, including outings to local shops, cafes, restaurants, events and sports activities.
“Staff supported people to be involved in choosing their activities during their stay at Orchard Close.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What decision has been made about the future use of the home, following the consultation mentioned in the report?
- 02How many staff usually work when the home is closer to its maximum occupancy of 15 people?
- 03How will you support my relative's specific communication needs, including any use of pictures, signs or other aids?
- 04How will you manage my relative's medicines, including whether they can safely manage any medicines themselves?
- 05What activities and community outings are available during a respite stay, and how are individual choices included?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five key questions, but only two people were resident at the time because of staff training. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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, January 2017
Orchard Close Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but the Effective rating Requires Improvement because staff training records were incomplete.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 22 November 2016. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People felt safe, were treated with dignity and respect, had person-centred care plans, and were supported to take part in activities.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Staff said they received training and supervision, but the home could not consistently show this in its records. Some training information was missing, and supervision was not always formally documented.
The report also found that some statutory notifications had not been sent to the CQC as required. This had already been identified, and action had been taken to address it. The previous inspection in 2013 found no breaches of the regulations.
Safe medicines
Medicines were booked in and checked by two staff. Records matched the stock and administration entries for the three people checked.
“This demonstrated the management of people's medicines was safe.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices and keep doing tasks for themselves where possible.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities such as swimming, cycling, discos and trips. Staff asked people what they wanted to do.
“People were enabled to participate in a range of activities during their stay at Orchard Close.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingThe home could not clearly evidence that all staff training was current. Supervision was said to happen, but it was not always formally recorded.
“However, the service could not clearly evidence all staff training was up to date and supervisions were not always documented.” from the report
Notifications to the CQC
needs fixingSome accidents and incidents had not been notified to the CQC as required. The provider had identified this and said action had already been taken.
“Whilst it was noted statutory notifications had not been submitted to the Care Quality Commission in line with regulatory requirements, we saw evidence this had been identified by the registered provider and action had already been taken to address the matter.” from the report
- 01Which staff training was missing from the records at the inspection, and has all of it now been completed?
- 02How do you record staff supervision, and can you show that every staff member receives it regularly?
- 03What new system is being used to alert managers when training is due?
- 04What incidents were not notified to the CQC, and how do you now make sure required notifications are sent?
- 05How are people's activity choices and updated care needs recorded before each respite stay?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas; inspectors reviewed three people's care plans, three staff records and quality documents, and spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2017 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 Orchard Close Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
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
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.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.