CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks, including falls, were assessed and managed. Staff were safely recruited, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control arrangements were judged effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, preferences and involvement were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture. Managers used audits, listened to feedback and acted promptly when shortfalls were found.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Orchard House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with minor medicines recording errors and one reporting delay.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 and 5 May 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Caring and Well-led because concerns had been raised about falls and care quality. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe and received personalised care. Risks, including falls, were assessed and monitored. Medicines were administered safely, staff knew people well, and people and relatives said staff were kind and respectful.
The home was judged to be well managed. Audits were used to monitor quality, staff were trained, and people and relatives could give feedback. Minor medicines recording errors were corrected during the inspection, and one delay in notifying the CQC was described as isolated.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in March 2020. This was a focused inspection, so the Effective and Responsive ratings were not reassessed and carried over from the earlier inspection.
Falls and risk management
Inspectors found that falls processes were robust and that people's mobility and other health risks were properly assessed and reviewed.
“Processes and procedures relating to the management and monitoring of falls were robust.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“People received safe, personalised care and were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Staffing and knowledge
There were enough trained staff, and staff knew people's needs and preferences. Recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough appropriately trained staff employed to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Management and improvement
The manager was visible and used audits to monitor the service. Improvements to the building had started, with more planned.
“The provider and registered manager worked together to check on the quality and safety of services.” from the report
Medicines records
minorInspectors found minor errors in medicines administration records. These were corrected during the inspection and extra checks were introduced.
“A review of MAR [medicines administration records] identified minor recording errors.” from the report
Reporting delay
minorThere had been a delay in sending one notification to the CQC. The report says this was isolated and that extra measures were put in place.
“The registered manager confirmed there had been a delay in submitting one notification to CQC.” from the report
- 01What extra checks are now used to make sure medicines administration records are complete?
- 02What measures were put in place after the delay in notifying the CQC?
- 03Have the planned improvements to the gardens, bathrooms and décor been completed?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Effective and Responsive, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
- 05How are falls risks reviewed if a resident's mobility or health changes?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led only; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 2023 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector. The inspector spoke with relatives, health professionals and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was found to have enough staff, safe medicine systems and suitable risk assessments. Staff were trained, supported people's health and worked well with health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Their care was personalised, and they were supported to make choices, stay in touch with family and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in October 2017.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels and deployment were sufficient to meet people's needs safely.
“There were enough staff on duty to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described and observed as caring, compassionate and respectful. They supported people's dignity and independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's history and preferences, and staff followed them when providing care.
“Care plans were comprehensive and reflected people's history and preferences.” from the report
Good health support
Staff referred people promptly to health professionals and followed recommendations about their care and nutrition.
“The quality of referrals are good, any recommendations are followed through by staff.” from the report
Effective leadership
The manager was accessible, understood their responsibilities and used audits and checks to monitor care.
“The registered manager maintained good oversight of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific health and nursing needs, and how quickly would you involve health professionals if their condition changed?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are administered safely and that staff remain competent to give them?
- 03How would you adapt communication if my relative had difficulty understanding or expressing their wishes?
- 04What activities and community links would be available for my relative, including one-to-one support?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning and reviews, and how could we raise a concern?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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.
Every inspection of Orchard House
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.