CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard Lea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by individual risk assessments, safety checks, trained staff and safe medicines systems. Inspectors found fire doors being held open with wooden wedges, and there was no written guidance for some 'as required' medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessed and regularly reviewed care plans, trained staff and access to health professionals. Some mental capacity assessments were three years old, and the menus had not been reviewed to check for a balanced diet.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed friendly interactions and found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, community life, family relationships and accessible information, and relatives said concerns were dealt with promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had a clear overview of the home, used audits and involved staff, people and relatives in feedback and improvements. Staff said they felt supported and worked well together.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and safety practices needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 and 4 January 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found it safe, clean and homely, with enough trained staff. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to stay independent.
Care plans were personal and reviewed regularly. People were supported with activities, family relationships, health care and accessible information. All five areas inspected were rated Good, and each rating remained Good.
Inspectors also found some issues. Two fire doors had been held open with wooden wedges, some medicines guidance was not written down, some mental capacity assessments were old, and the menus had not been checked for a balanced diet.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind. Inspectors saw friendly, two-way conversations and staff respecting privacy and dignity.
“We observed friendly two way conversations between them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded what mattered to each person, including their choices and preferences. People and relatives were involved in writing and reviewing plans.
“The records gave staff a clear understanding on how to support the person and what mattered to them, their choices and their preferences.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff helped people do more for themselves while managing risks. Relatives said people had become more confident and communicative.
“People's care plans focused on what they could do and how staff could help them to maintain their independence and keep them safe.” from the report
Activities and family links
People took part in activities at home and in the community, and staff helped them maintain important family relationships.
“Activities at the home and in the community were based on what people wanted do, achieve, and be involved in.” from the report
Open management
The management team was visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
“The management team had an 'open door policy' and we saw this applied to people and staff.” from the report
Fire doors held open
needs fixingTwo fire doors were held open with wooden wedges. The practice was stopped during the inspection, and the home planned to seek professional advice about a safe alternative.
“We found two fire doors where staff used wooden wedges to hold them open.” from the report
Written medicines guidance
needs fixingStaff discussed when some 'as required' medicines should be given, but written guidance was not available. The home said it would record the reasons for giving these medicines.
“Staff discussed when additional medicines prescribed 'as required' could be given but there no written guidance to support this.” from the report
Old capacity assessments
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments reviewed by inspectors were three years old. The home said everyone would be reassessed.
“Some of the mental capacity assessment we looked at were three years old.” from the report
Menus not checked for balance
needs fixingPeople could choose their meals, but the home had not reviewed its menus to check that they provided a balanced diet. The home said it would involve a dietician or nutritionist.
“The nominated individual confirmed that the menus were not being reviewed to ensure a balanced diet” from the report
- 01What written guidance is now in place for giving 'as required' medicines, and how is this checked?
- 02How are fire doors kept safe and secure now that wooden wedges have been stopped?
- 03Have all mental capacity assessments been reviewed and updated where needed?
- 04Who reviewed the menus for a balanced diet, and what changes were made?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments checked when a person's needs or independence change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, including the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2019 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 Lea
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2013.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.