CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Orchid Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, the home was clean, equipment and the environment were checked, and there were enough staff. Inspectors recommended improving the recording of the time when medicines given when needed were administered.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained, and referrals were made to healthcare professionals when needed. People were supported with suitable food, drinks and diets.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. Inspectors saw staff promoting choice, dignity, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, likes and dislikes. The home supported communication, family visits and activities, although a new wellbeing programme had not yet started at the time of inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers worked closely together, staff knew their responsibilities, and audits and meetings were used to identify improvements. Managers were described as approachable and responsive to feedback.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Orchid Villa is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor gaps in medicines and DoLS records.
Inspectors visited without notice on three dates in February and March 2022. They looked at the building, staffing, care records, medicines, infection control and how the home was managed. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff.
The home was clean and safe, with enough staff and suitable recruitment checks. People were supported with medicines, food, healthcare and daily choices. Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management. They recommended improving records for medicines given when needed, and managers took immediate action about recording some DoLS conditions.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly, and shortfalls were covered with agency staff.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were quick to respond to people's requests for support, and available to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted by staff. We observed staff would knock before entering people's bedrooms and encouraged people to be independent.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, and staff understood how individuals wanted to be supported.
“People received person-centred care in line with their needs and preferences. Care plans contained detail about people's likes and dislikes” from the report
Learning from incidents
Managers reviewed accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns for patterns. Inspectors found that action was taken when things went wrong.
“Records of incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were reviewed for themes and trends.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could raise concerns. The management team investigated complaints and used feedback to make changes.
“The provider and registered managers were very responsive to feedback and took quick action in response to the feedback given throughout the inspection.” from the report
Medicines records
minorThe time was not recorded for medicines given when needed. Inspectors made a recommendation to change the paperwork.
“PRN medicines (medicines that are given 'when necessary') did not have the time recorded when the dose was given.” from the report
DoLS conditions not always clearly recorded
needs fixingThe home was meeting the conditions attached to some DoLS authorisations, but the conditions were not always clearly written down. Managers took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“However, we found these were not always explicitly recorded as part of the conditions of DoLS, meaning that staff may not be aware of the importance of completing certain required actions.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the exact time when medicines given when needed are administered?
- 02How are DoLS conditions recorded and shared with staff so that all required actions are completed?
- 03Has the move from paper care plans to electronic records been completed, and how are changes checked?
- 04What progress has been made with the planned garden and decorating work?
- 05Has the new wellbeing programme started, and what activities and community links are now available?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by infection-control checks and then expanded to cover all five key questions; it was the first five-domain inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2022 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 November 2020. It checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment correctly. The home had regular testing for staff and residents, enhanced cleaning, and an up-to-date infection control policy.
The home had a separate visiting pod with an intercom. This allowed relatives to visit without entering the home. Relatives were also supported to visit in exceptional situations, such as when someone was near the end of their life.
The service was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. The inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or assess all five areas of care.
Correct use of PPE
Staff used protective equipment correctly and disposed of it safely.
“Staff were wearing the required personal protective equipment (PPE); donning and doffing PPE correctly and disposing of used PPE safely and in line with the relevant national guidance.” from the report
Regular testing
The home had a programme to test staff and residents frequently.
“The home had a testing programme in place to frequently test staff and residents.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with more frequent cleaning during the day.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules had been reviewed and enhanced and frequent cleaning was carried out throughout the day.” from the report
Safer visiting
A separate visiting pod allowed relatives to see people without entering the home.
“The home had built a screened and self-contained pod with an intercom system to enable relatives to safely visit their loved ones.” from the report
End-of-life visits
Relatives were supported to visit in exceptional circumstances, including when someone was approaching the end of their life.
“Relatives had also been supported to safely visit their loved ones in exceptional circumstances in line with the national guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 02Is the separate visiting pod still available, and how are visits arranged?
- 03How would you support visits if my relative were approaching the end of their life?
- 04How often are communal areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2020 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 Villa
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 April 2019.
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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“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.