CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Orla House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough experienced staff, robust risk assessments, safe medicines systems and well-maintained equipment. Staff understood safeguarding, infection control and people's individual risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed, regularly reviewed care plans and staff had relevant training. People were supported with food, health care, communication, consent and daily choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They promoted independence, understood individual communication styles and supported relationships and community involvement.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and flexible. People took part in activities, meal preparation, shopping and community events, and information was provided in ways they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular checks and an open culture. Families, people using the service and staff were consulted about the home.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Orla House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, safe systems and strong management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, friends, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked records, including medicines, care plans, staffing and audits.
The home supported 10 people with learning disabilities, including autism, and physical disabilities. Inspectors found that staff knew people very well and supported their choices, communication, health, independence and community activities. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and equipment were managed safely.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection, published in June 2017, had also rated the home Good.
Kind and personal care
Staff were described as exceptionally caring and knew people's needs, preferences and communication styles well. Inspectors saw sensitive support that protected dignity and encouraged independence.
“People were supported by an exceptionally caring staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough experienced staff at all times. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, with regular checks of staff competence.
“We saw there were sufficient staff employed to meet people's needs at all times of the day and night.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to attend day centres, colleges, local events, shops and other activities. The home had adapted vehicles to help people access the community.
“People were fully engaged as active participants in the local community, through attendance at local day centres, colleges, and by going out independently to local events and shopping.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans covered people's health, communication, routines, choices and personal goals. Families, advocates and relevant professionals were involved in reviewing them.
“Care plans were highly personalised in relation to all aspects of the support each person needed.” from the report
Strong management
The home had regular audits and checks, and staff understood their responsibilities. The manager worked with health and social care professionals and acted on learning.
“There was a clear management structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Size compared with guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 14 people, which inspectors said was larger than current best practice guidance. They found that the building design and its setting reduced any negative impact.
“The service is registered for the support of up to 14 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication style, including any need for pictures, signs, devices or easy-read information?
- 02How would you manage my relative's health risks, including any choking risk, modified diet or specialist equipment?
- 03How are families involved when care plans are reviewed or when important decisions are made?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff to support people at all times?
- 05How does the home's capacity of up to 14 people affect space, privacy and daily life for residents?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with enough staff and effective oversight.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 10 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with four people, five relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, had enough suitably trained staff, received medicines safely and were supported with their health and nutrition.
Inspectors saw warm and respectful relationships. Staff knew people's communication needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and use community services.
The service remained Good, the same rating as at the previous inspection in March 2015. The report found that leaders monitored the quality and safety of care and encouraged feedback from people and relatives.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also found to be effective.
“The staff roster confirmed there were sufficient staff employed and deployed appropriately.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, patience, dignity and respect.
“The interactions we saw between staff and people were characterised by much shared humour and warmth.” from the report
Individual activities
People were supported to enjoy activities inside and outside the home, including community events, hobbies and holidays.
“This demonstrated that people had a full and active life and were protected from social isolation because they were supported to participate in activities with other people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Leaders used regular checks covering areas such as the environment, care records and medicines. People and relatives were also invited to give feedback.
“Quality assurance systems were in place that monitored quality and safety and helped drive improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks and changing needs?
- 02How do you check that medicines are ordered, stored, given and audited safely?
- 03How will staff communicate with my relative if they do not use speech, including through gestures, behaviour or Makaton?
- 04Which activities and community opportunities would be suitable for my relative's interests and preferences?
- 05How can my family give feedback or raise a complaint, and how would it be followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, with observations, discussions and checks of records and systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Orla House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.