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
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, visitor arrangements, cleaning and outbreak management. They had concerns about staff deployment and documents that were not supplied.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted support from the management team.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control measures during a COVID-19 outbreak but had concerns about staff deployment and missing documents.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because the home had a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and admissions, and keeping the building clean. Staff also monitored people's temperatures, oxygen levels, food and fluids.
Inspectors had concerns that staff were not separated into teams for people who had tested positive and negative for COVID-19. Some requested documents, including the infection control policy, audits and risk assessments, were not supplied.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Visitor arrangements
The home had arrangements to help people stay in contact with family and friends during the pandemic, including outdoor and indoor visiting spaces.
“This included outdoor heated summerhouses and a designated room indoors.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had a continuing supply of PPE and inspectors saw it being used in line with guidance.
“Staff were provided with an ongoing supply of PPE and we saw staff wore PPE in accordance with best practice guidance.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning schedules had been strengthened during the pandemic, including regular cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“There were comprehensive cleaning schedules in place which had been adapted and enhanced at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to include frequent cleaning of touch points.” from the report
Monitoring people's health
Staff checked oxygen levels, temperatures, food and fluids so that concerns could be escalated and healthcare sought.
“Staff were regularly monitoring people's oxygen saturation levels and temperatures, as well as food and fluid intake to ensure any concerns were escalated appropriately and healthcare sought.” from the report
Staff deployment during the outbreak
needs fixingThe home did not have separate staff teams for people who had tested positive and negative for COVID-19. Inspectors said they had concerns about this arrangement.
“We had concerns around staff deployment in the home during the outbreak.” from the report
Missing infection-control documents
needs fixingThe provider did not supply the infection-control policy, audit and risk-assessment documents requested by inspectors.
“The provider did not supply certain documents we requested to view including their infection control policy, audit and risk assessments.” from the report
- 01How are staff teams now separated between people who have tested positive and negative for COVID-19?
- 02What happened to the infection-control policy, audits and risk assessments that were not supplied during the inspection?
- 03How often are PPE use and cleaning checks carried out, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 04How are visitors currently tested and supported to visit safely?
- 05What ratings does the home currently have for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 2021 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but activities did not meet everyone's needs.
Inspectors visited Orchard House unannounced on 21 May 2018. They spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff. They observed care, medicines and staff interactions. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, staff records and quality checks.
The home was supporting 43 people and could accommodate up to 50. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable staff training and appropriate recruitment checks. Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and communication.
People described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors found the home well led, with systems to investigate complaints and monitor quality. There were mixed views about activities, and the manager said these would be reviewed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 29 October 2015.
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels were adjusted when people's needs changed. Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely.
“This demonstrated there were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's choices, preferences, communication needs and risks. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and contained appropriate risk assessments.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience and kindness. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and choices.
“People were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff had completed relevant training and received regular one-to-one supervision. Inspectors found staff competent to meet people's needs.
“This demonstrated the care and support needs of people were met by competent staff, with the skills, knowledge and experience to meet such needs effectively.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor care and look for improvements.
“We found systems were in place to formally assess, review and monitor the quality of care provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What one-to-one activities are now available for people who cannot take part in group activities?
- 02How do you assess whether activities match each person's interests, abilities and changing needs?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when someone's needs change?
- 04How do you monitor staffing levels when people's care needs increase?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will they be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection of the premises and care provided, covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Orchard House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.