CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchard Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infections. They found arrangements for safe visiting, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and new admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Orchard Lodge Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 12 March 2021. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control. Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and managed infections.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for visiting, including COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, hand sanitiser and social distancing. The home had supplies of protective equipment and staff had been trained to use it safely.
The home was clean and hygienic. People and staff were tested regularly, and people had COVID-19 care plans. New residents were tested, cared for in their own room for 14 days and checked for symptoms.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit focused on infection prevention and control, rather than giving a full rating across all areas of care.
Safe visiting
Relatives were tested before visits and supported to use protective equipment, hand sanitiser and social distancing in a dedicated visiting area.
“A safe visiting procedure was in place. People's relatives were tested for COVID-19 with lateral flow tests prior to visits taking place.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
The home had a good supply of protective equipment. Staff had training in using and disposing of it, and regular testing was in place for people and staff.
“The home had a good supply of PPE. Staff had received training on how safely use and dispose of PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Enhanced cleaning of frequently touched areas had been introduced.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout. The registered manager told us they had implemented stricter cleaning protocols” from the report
Safe admissions
People arriving at the home were tested, monitored for symptoms and cared for in their own room for an initial 14-day period.
“People were admitted to the service safely. People were tested for COVID-19 prior to their arrival and were cared for in their own room for an initial period of 14 days.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are relatives currently tested and supported during visits?
- 02How often are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough PPE and that staff continue to use it safely?
- 04What arrangements are used now when someone is admitted, including testing and monitoring for symptoms?
- 05How often are frequently touched areas cleaned under the enhanced cleaning protocols?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, reported under Safe; it did not provide a full overall rating or ratings for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with medicine recording improved but two recording issues corrected during the visit.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 25 March 2019. Inspectors looked at the building, care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and safety checks. They spoke with five people living at the home, a visitor and four staff members.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment, clean surroundings and good support with medicines, healthcare, food and activities.
Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were involved in decisions about their care. The home worked with healthcare professionals and supported people with end of life care when needed.
This was an improvement from the previous rating of Requires Improvement in April 2018. Medicines management had improved and the previous recommendation about quality checks had been addressed. Inspectors still found two medicine-recording issues and an outstanding need for radiator covers, but the manager acted on these during or immediately after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated well and staff supported their dignity, privacy and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners In their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, choices and abilities. They were reviewed regularly and updated when people's circumstances changed.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed, accurately capturing personal preferences as well as the choices and decisions that people could make for themselves.” from the report
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and staff who understood how to protect people from harm. People said staff responded quickly when they used their call buzzer.
“There were sufficient numbers safely recruited and suitably qualified and skilled staff in place to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Improved medicines oversight
Medicine procedures had improved since the previous inspection. Medicines were securely stored, controlled medicines were checked and only trained staff administered them.
“Medication procedures had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with district nurses, specialist teams and other healthcare professionals. Staff arranged referrals and helped people access services such as dentists and opticians.
“The registered manager worked in partnership with a range of different health services and professionals to help make sure people received the right support.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne person's allergy was not accurately recorded on the pre-printed medicine record. The use of thickening agent for another person was also not recorded adequately. The manager took immediate action during the inspection.
“One person's allergies were not accurately recorded on the pre-printed MAR however; were recorded throughout the care plan.” from the report
Radiator covers
needs fixingA health and safety audit had identified that radiator covers were needed to reduce the risk of burns. The manager sent evidence the next day that they had been ordered.
“We saw that a recent health and safety audit identified that radiator covers were needed to reduce the risk of people receiving burns.” from the report
Further modernisation
minorSome parts of the home still needed updating, including the lounge carpet and conservatory furniture. The manager said replacement and further redecoration were being arranged.
“There has been an ongoing scheme of redecoration including the communal areas however, some areas still required further modernisation, such as the lounge carpet and the conservatory furniture.” from the report
- 01Have the radiator covers identified in the health and safety audit now been fitted?
- 02How do you check that allergies are recorded correctly on medicine records?
- 03How do you record prescribed thickening agents and check that staff follow the instructions?
- 04Have the lounge carpet and conservatory furniture been replaced or updated?
- 05How are people's care plans, activities and end of life wishes reviewed when their needs or preferences change?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection of the whole residential care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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 Lodge Care Home
7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 February 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.