Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Orchard Grove Reablement Centre

Goodpublished 18 July 2018, 8 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured that testing, protective equipment, infection control policies, social distancing and visitor safety arrangements were being managed properly.
Effective?
Good
This was not assessed in this inspection.
Caring?
Good
This was not assessed in this inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This was not assessed in this inspection.
Well-led?
Good
The inspection noted extra manager audits and checks, but this question was not rated.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2020

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the pandemic review.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 6 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control as part of a national coronavirus review. Five people were living at the home, which can support up to 24 people.

Inspectors were assured that people and staff were tested regularly, infection control guidance was up to date, and staff were using protective equipment safely. They also found that staff understood shielding, social distancing, hand washing and visitor safety procedures.

The home had brought in an infection control specialist to provide daily practical training. It also used extra checks, planning and communication with families, including video calls and newsletters.

The home was not given a quality rating. This inspection was focused on infection control, so it does not give a full judgement about all aspects of care.

What inspectors praised
  • Specialist infection control support

    The home employed an external specialist who gave staff daily practical training and helped keep procedures up to date.

    “An external consultant with specialist knowledge and expertise in public health and infection control had been taken on to work in the home.” from the report
  • Regular testing

    People and staff were tested regularly, with testing having started early in the pandemic.

    “Everyone in the home was tested for Covid 19 on a regular basis.” from the report
  • Family contact

    The home used video calls and newsletters to help families stay in touch and informed while reducing infection risks.

    “Visitors could see family members and friends on video calls on equipment provided by the service.” from the report
  • Protective equipment and checks

    Inspectors found that protective equipment was available and used safely. Extra management audits and checks were also in place.

    “Through what we saw, our conversations with senior managers, and audits and checking process, we were assured the provider was ensuring PPE was used properly and safely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How often are people and staff tested now, and what happens if someone has a positive result?
  2. 02How is staff infection control training provided now, and how is it checked?
  3. 03How do you currently manage visits and contact with family members while reducing infection risks?
  4. 04How often are infection control audits carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
  5. 05What policies are used to make sure new admissions are safe?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the home was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2018

Orchard Grove Reablement Centre rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicine errors and some communication gaps needed attention.

This was an unannounced inspection. The inspectors spoke with seven people using the home, six staff members and eight community health professionals. They also reviewed three care records and documents about incidents, training and quality checks.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People generally felt safe, received kind support and were helped to work towards returning to their own homes.

The inspectors found some issues that the manager was already working to improve. These included medicine administration errors, occasional communication lapses between therapy and reablement staff, and minor hand hygiene concerns.

What inspectors praised
  • Prompt support

    People said staff were available and responded quickly when they used their call bells.

    “People told us staff attended to them quickly and they didn't have to wait long.” from the report
  • Rehabilitation focus

    The home had therapy staff, individual goals and suitable facilities to help people work towards returning home.

    “The service was effective at supporting people to meet their rehabilitation goals.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect, allowing them time to talk and encouraging independence.

    “Staff were kind and caring and built strong relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
  • Personalised goals

    People's progress was monitored against goals suited to their own circumstances.

    “People's therapy goals were personalised to their individual circumstances.” from the report
  • Open culture

    Staff said they could approach managers and raise concerns, and the wider organisation supported the manager.

    “There was an open and transparent culture within the service where staff felt able to approach senior staff to report their concerns.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine administration errors

    serious

    The manager had identified errors in administering medicines and reported them to the local authority. Tailored staff training was planned, so families should ask what action was completed.

    “The manager told us they had identified some issues with the administration of medicine that had led to errors occurring.” from the report
  • Communication between teams

    needs fixing

    Different systems were used on the two floors and there were occasional lapses when therapy goals were updated. The home had introduced attendance at weekly multidisciplinary meetings to improve this.

    “It was apparent however that there were occasional lapses in communication, particularly when therapy goals were updated.” from the report
  • Meal preparation

    needs fixing

    Staff felt people were not always encouraged to prepare their own meals, which might not fully fit the reablement approach. The manager was considering how to address this.

    “One issue that was raised with us by staff was that people weren't always encouraged to make their own meals.” from the report
  • Gym availability

    needs fixing

    Staff said the gym was sometimes used for meetings and was not always available when needed. The manager said the effect on people was minimal.

    “There was a concern raised by staff the gym wasn't always available for use when required because it was used for other purposes such as meetings.” from the report
  • Hand hygiene

    minor

    Inspectors found minor hand hygiene issues, including jewellery being worn while staff served meals. The manager said this would be addressed.

    “For example, some staff wore jewellery whilst serving meals.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What medicine administration errors were found, and what tailored training and checks have been completed since the inspection?
  2. 02How are therapy goals passed on to reablement staff when they change?
  3. 03How much opportunity will my relative have to prepare meals and practise other tasks needed at home?
  4. 04How often is the gym available for rehabilitation, and what happens if it is being used for meetings?
  5. 05What social activities or community links are available to help people prepare for returning home?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and was the first inspection after the reablement centre and adjoining nursing home had separate registrations. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 July 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Orchard Grove Reablement Centre

3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Orchard Grove Reablement Centre →

  2. July 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Orchard Grove Reablement Centre →

  3. May 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2010.

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

40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of

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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
Nicola B., about Lynnette M.
“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”
Katrina O., about Sekai M.
See live-in carers near Bristol, City ofProfiles, 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.