CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard End
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, good medicines systems and appropriate risk assessments. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and learned from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's healthcare needs, choices and legal rights. Inspectors found one occasion when dietary guidance was not followed in a person-centred way, but the manager acted immediately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were supported by staff who knew them well and respected their dignity, choices, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were personalised to people's needs, wishes and goals. However, some healthcare guidance was not clearly referenced in the care assessments or easy for staff to find.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had strong leadership and regular audits. People's views, staff feedback and expert audits were used to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care guidance not always easy to find.
This was a comprehensive, routine inspection. Inspectors visited the home on 5 and 7 March 2018, and also visited the provider's regional office on 9 January 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and reviewed care records, staff records and management records.
The home supported 10 people at the time, in accommodation for people with learning disabilities, mental health needs or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. People had regular activities, help to access the community and care plans tailored to their needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also identified that some important care guidance was not always clearly linked or easy for staff to find. The manager took action during or immediately after the inspection, and care records were being updated.
People's safety
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities in the community.
“There were enough social care workers deployed to ensure people were safe and their well-being needs were met.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their care where possible. Staff knew their individual goals, preferences and communication needs.
“People were at the centre of their care. Social care workers knew people well and knew how to support them with their goals.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that people were treated with respect. People's choices about daily activities and personal space were supported.
“Staff were considerate of people's feeling at all times and always treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to go out, take part in activities and develop their confidence and independence. Activities were based on individual interests and abilities.
“People enjoyed a busy and activity life, which included activities, events and tasks which were personalised to their needs, wishes and goals.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The management team used regular checks, audits and people's feedback to monitor the service and plan improvements.
“The quality, safety and effectiveness of the service was monitored by a wide variety of quality assurance processes and audits.” from the report
Care guidance was not always easy to find
needs fixingSome important guidance from healthcare professionals was stored in other records or was not clearly referenced in care assessments. This could make it harder for staff to find the right instructions quickly.
“However, sometimes information was not always clear or easy for social care workers to find.” from the report
Dietary guidance was not followed on one occasion
needs fixingOne person was not supported fully in line with their eating and drinking guidance during the inspection. The report says this did not put the person at risk, but it could have affected their dignity, and the manager took immediate action.
“A staff member had assisted them in a way, which while not putting the person at risk, was not person centred and could negatively impact the person's dignity.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure staff can quickly find and follow each person's healthcare, eating and drinking guidance?
- 02What checks are carried out to confirm that staff follow specialist dietary instructions at every meal?
- 03What changes were made to the care planning system after this inspection, and are all records now clear and easy to use?
- 04How many staff are normally available to provide one-to-one support and help people take part in community activities?
- 05What refurbishment or extension work was completed in the bungalow, and how were people supported while it took place?
This was a comprehensive routine inspection, covering all five questions, with visits to the home on 5 and 7 March 2018 and a provider office visit on 9 January 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 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 Orchard End
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 October 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.