CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orion House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of PPE, visitor checks, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak planning. This was an infection prevention and control inspection rather than a full safety assessment.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls, PPE use and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The home supports up to seven younger adults with learning disabilities and also supports people in their own homes.
Inspectors found that staff used the right protective equipment and that supplies had not run low. They were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, testing, admissions, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely.
The home had adapted activities and information to help people understand restrictions. This inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The report lists 4 February 2021 as the inspection visit date on the front page, but the detailed section says the inspection took place on 29 January 2021.
PPE and infection control
Staff understood which PPE to use and were observed wearing it throughout the building. The home also had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“Staff were observed wearing PPE throughout the building during the inspection.” from the report
Support during restrictions
The home used social stories and easy-read information to help people understand why restrictions were in place. It also created activities such as discos, crafts and walks.
“The registered manager had been proactive in helping people with cognitive understanding to feel safe and have some understanding of why restrictions were in place.” from the report
Family visiting
A separate visiting room allowed families to visit without entering the main building. Visits were booked in advance and supported by social distancing and individual risk assessments.
“The provider had a visiting room within the grounds of the home. This meant families could visit without having to enter the main building.” from the report
Preparedness
The home had a plan for a possible outbreak and had arranged testing and vaccinations for people and staff.
“There was a contingency plan for if the service had an outbreak.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE supplies checked now, and what happens if stocks become low?
- 02How are visits arranged now, and is the separate visiting room still available?
- 03How are people supported to understand any current restrictions or changes?
- 04What is the current plan if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How are cleaning, staff testing and vaccinations managed now?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full overall rating or ratings for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care at this first inspection.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered with the CQC. It was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 January 2019, carried out by one inspector. Four of the five people living there were seen, along with staff, the manager, a relative and a professional.
Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were safe. People had suitable risk assessments, access to health professionals and support with food, activities and community life. The home was clean and had been refurbished.
Staff were trained and understood people's communication needs. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions, and found that people were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report does not identify any breached regulations or enforcement action. As this was the first inspection, there is no earlier rating in this report to compare with.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely. Staff had suitable training and clear instructions for medicines given only when needed.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Active daily lives
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to visit local places. Staffing arrangements helped people access the community safely.
“People lived full and active lives and were supported to access local areas and activities.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff were patient, respectful and attentive to people's individual ways of communicating.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff who valued them.” from the report
Personalised records
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, history, communication and health needs. Family members or advocates helped where people could not be fully involved themselves.
“People's care records were detailed and personalised to meet individual needs.” from the report
Open management
The manager worked alongside staff and was described as approachable. Audits and other checks were used to monitor quality and safety.
“People lived in a service where the provider's values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you involve my relative, their family or an advocate in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 02What communication methods will staff use if my relative cannot explain their views verbally?
- 03When would my relative need one-to-one or two-to-one staff support, and how is this guaranteed?
- 04How do you record and review medicines given only when needed?
- 05What activities and community visits would be available based on my relative's interests?
This was the home's first unannounced comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions; five people lived there at the time, and four were seen by the inspector. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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 Orion House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2018.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“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.”
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.