CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchid House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 10 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, social distancing and visits. The home worked with the local authority infection control team and other health professionals.
People who were isolating had regular contact with staff. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family and friends by phone, online and through newsletters.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Outbreak management
The home used government testing and worked with local health professionals to identify and manage the outbreak.
“The service was accessing the government testing scheme which assisted them to promptly identify an outbreak.” from the report
Protective equipment and hygiene
There was enough PPE, with PPE stations and hand-sanitising points placed around the home. Signs and staff communication reinforced hygiene practices.
“There was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as disposable masks, gloves and aprons.” from the report
Support during isolation
People isolating in their rooms had regular contact with staff, who used PPE appropriately.
“People isolating in their rooms had very regular contact with staff, who wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends during COVID-19 restrictions, including through phone calls, online contact and newsletters.
“Staff also helped people to maintain links with their family and friends by phone and on-line.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control measures are in place now?
- 02How are visitors currently managed to prevent infections spreading?
- 03How often are people and staff tested when there is a suspected or confirmed outbreak?
- 04How will you help my relative keep in regular contact with family if they need to isolate?
- 05Can you show me the current infection prevention and control policy?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring, personalised support, but medicines, safeguarding notifications and management oversight were not always safe or effective.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection in October 2019. One inspector spoke with three people using the home, four staff members and two members of the management team. They also checked care, medicine and staff records, audits, policies and procedures.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found personalised care, respectful staff, support for choice and independence, good healthcare arrangements, and clear complaints processes.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Medicine records and some medicine arrangements had shortfalls. The provider had not always notified CQC about suspected abuse incidents, and the management arrangements did not fully meet regulatory requirements.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and choices. Inspectors found that staff understood how to provide support that suited each person.
“Care plans were extremely person-centred. Care was planned and delivered in line with people's individual assessments.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff treated people with warmth and respect. They protected privacy and supported people at their own pace.
“Staff we observed were warm and respectful in their interactions with people using the service, and people responded positively to this.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped make decisions about food, activities and the home. Staff supported people to develop everyday living skills and become more independent.
“Programmes were devised with people to support them in developing independent living skills.” from the report
Relevant staff training
Records showed staff had training in areas relevant to the people living in the home. Staff also received supervision and appraisal.
“Staff training records showed they had received a range of training in areas appropriate to the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Medicine records and procedures
seriousAudits had not identified some problems with medicine records and management. Staff could not describe the protocols for medicines given when needed, although the provider later supplied the protocols.
“However, we saw these audits had failed to identify shortfalls in records and medicines management.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
seriousThe provider did not always send CQC the required notifications after suspected abuse incidents. This was one reason the Safe rating required improvement.
“We identified occasions where people had been subject to suspected abuse, however, the provider had on a small number of occasions, failed to submit the appropriate notifications to CQC” from the report
Management responsibility
needs fixingA registered manager was listed, but staff and managers said that person was not involved in the home. The report said this person was not suitable to hold the role, and a member of the management team then began the registration process.
“Although there was a registered manager in place, staff and the management team told us the registered manager had no involvement with the service.” from the report
Regulatory knowledge
needs fixingThe management team did not know that the previous CQC rating had to be displayed. They corrected this during the inspection, but inspectors also found wider gaps in knowledge of regulatory requirements.
“The rating from the last inspection was not on display in the home.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicine records are complete and medicine audits identify problems?
- 02How are medicines given on an as-needed basis managed, and can we see the current protocols?
- 03What has been done to ensure all suspected abuse incidents are reported to CQC when required?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the registration process been completed?
- 05How are people and families involved in checking that the improvements identified at this inspection have been made?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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 Orchid House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.