CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including visits, protective equipment, cleaning and isolation. They were only somewhat assured about staff lateral flow testing because it did not follow government guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Orchard House Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; infection control was mostly reassuring, but staff testing was not in line with government guidance.
This was a targeted inspection on 26 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The inspection was announced in advance.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for visits, including health checks, temperature checks and rapid testing for some visitors. Staff used protective equipment, cleaning was planned, and people were isolated when needed.
Inspectors were not fully assured about staff lateral flow testing. Staff were testing, but not in line with government guidance. The provider said it would update its policy and risk assessments.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating and does not assess all five areas of care.
Safer visiting
Visits were planned around people's circumstances and alternatives such as phone and video calls were available when physical visits were not safe.
“Alternatives were in place where it was not safe for people or their family members for a physical visit.” from the report
Cleaning and protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment correctly and the home had a planned programme for cleaning, disinfecting and sanitising frequently touched and personal items.
“Staff implemented their training about infection prevention and control (IPC) and the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Managing infection risks
People were isolated when needed, and staff worked in groups so that only certain staff cared for anyone suspected or known to have COVID-19.
“People, when needed, had been isolated for the appropriate time until it was safe for them to enter communal areas.” from the report
Staff testing did not follow guidance
needs fixingStaff were carrying out lateral flow tests, but the arrangements did not match government guidance. The provider said it would update its policy and risk assessments.
“Although staff were undertaking lateral flow testing, this was not in line with government guidance.” from the report
- 01Have staff lateral flow testing arrangements been updated to follow government guidance?
- 02Can you show what changes were made to the infection control policy and risk assessments after this inspection?
- 03How are visits currently arranged, and what alternatives are offered when a physical visit is not safe?
- 04How do you manage isolation if someone is suspected or confirmed to have an infection?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not assess the other four key questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with occasional cleaning issues noted.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 3 November 2017. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with people, visitors and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines practices, appropriate training and good support with meals, healthcare and mobility.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, care plans were detailed and reviewed, and people had activities, visitors and ways to raise complaints.
The home was already rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. Inspectors did note that some soiled seats were not always cleaned immediately and that offensive smells were sometimes present.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff. Call bells were answered promptly and staff were not seen to rush people.
“During our visit we saw that there were staff members available in all areas of the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke calmly, protected people's dignity and adapted their approach when people were distressed or needed extra reassurance.
“We saw that staff were kind and thoughtful in the way they spoke with and approached people.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans recorded people's life histories, preferences and needs. Staff could explain how they provided personalised support.
“All files contained details about people's life history, their likes and dislikes, what was important to each person and how staff should support them.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in varied activities, use the garden and attend a day centre. Visitors were welcomed throughout the day.
“People had access to a variety of activities that staff supported them to take part in.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, feedback and reviews of accidents and incidents to identify improvements and reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“The registered manager used various ways to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Cleaning delays and smells
minorA visitor said soiled seats were not always cleaned straight away. Inspectors also noticed occasional offensive odours, although these reduced as areas were cleaned.
“However, a visitor said that sometimes seats that had become soiled after people sat on them, were not always cleaned straight away.” from the report
- 01How quickly are soiled furniture and other areas cleaned, and how do you check that this is done?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty during the day and at night, and how do you increase staffing when needs change?
- 03How will you involve my relative in their care plan, daily choices and activities?
- 04How do you support people living with dementia when they become anxious or distressed?
- 05How are end of life wishes recorded and reviewed with the person and their family?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Orchard House Residential Care Home →
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Orchard House Residential Care Home →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.