CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orchid
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Recruitment checks, medicines systems, infection control and learning from accidents were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate induction, training and supervision. People were supported with food, health appointments, communication and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and understood people's preferences. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, interests and communication methods. People were supported to keep in touch with family, attend activities and take trips and holidays.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and regular audits. Staff said they felt supported, and people and staff were involved in discussions about how the home was run.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Orchid is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 October 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, two relatives, the manager and two care workers. They observed care and checked care files, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
The home supported up to four people with learning disabilities, and three people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices and build independence. Care plans were personalised and people were supported with health care, activities, family contact and communication.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The previous inspection in May 2017 also rated the home Good, so the ratings had remained the same.
Safe staffing
The home used a consistent staff team. Inspectors found that suitable recruitment checks had been completed and staff had the skills needed to support people.
“People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, interests, preferences and the way they wanted to receive support. People, relatives and advocates were involved in reviews.
“Care plans were person centred and included information on people's background, hobbies and interests, likes and dislikes and preferences on how they wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed patient and understanding staff who knew people well. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, develop daily living skills and take part in activities in the community. The home also supported communication using pictures, objects, Makaton and electronic devices.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used regular audits, meetings and external checks to monitor the quality and safety of the home.
“The registered manager had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's communication needs, including any use of pictures, objects, Makaton or electronic communication aids?
- 02What activities, college opportunities, community links and family visits would be available for my relative?
- 03How often would my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how would we be involved in changes?
- 04How are medicines reviewed and monitored, including any medicines that could affect mood or behaviour?
- 05What is the current position on the manager's registration with the CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, care and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in May 2017 had also rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 4 and 11 April 2017. The inspector reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and a health and social care professional, and observed care.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines, managed risks and safeguarding arrangements. Staff had the training and knowledge needed, and people were supported with food, healthcare, choice and independence.
Care was described as kind, respectful and highly personalised. Care plans were regularly reviewed, activities matched people's interests, and there was a complaints process. All five areas were rated Good. The overall rating remained Good, while the Effective rating improved from the previous inspection.
Kind, personalised care
Staff understood people's individual needs, preferences and life histories. Inspectors saw kind and respectful support.
“Staff provided a caring and supportive environment for people who lived at the service.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had suitable recruitment procedures, enough staff and arrangements for extra cover. Medicines were stored and given safely.
“There were safe administration systems in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and take part in activities in the home and the community.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Person-centred planning
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences. They were reviewed every three months or sooner when needs changed.
“Care plans were very person centred, identifying people's needs, choices and preferences and how these should be met.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Management used audits, questionnaires and external checks to monitor quality and safety.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions remain correct for my relative?
- 02How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and any conditions monitored?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed, and how will the family be involved?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough trained staff if someone is absent?
- 05Which activities, outings or holidays could my relative take part in, and how would their preferences be recorded?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all fundamental standards of care; observation was the main way inspectors assessed experiences because most people could not or chose not to communicate verbally. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2017 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.