CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Orchard
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staffing levels were sufficient. Inspectors found gaps in some risk assessments and in recording reasons for as-needed medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had up-to-date training and people received support with their health, diet, appointments and independence. Care plans reflected people's individual needs and choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and supported to make choices and develop skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, routines and communication needs. People were supported to access the community, work or education and to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had systems for oversight, including audits, spot checks, staff meetings and surveys. Some audits needed extra checks to make sure paperwork stayed up to date.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some risk and medicines records needed updating.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 August 2021. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were supported by staff who knew them well, had suitable training and were safely recruited.
People were involved in their care, supported to make choices and encouraged to be independent. Inspectors also found suitable infection control arrangements, including the use of personal protective equipment and completed cleaning schedules.
Inspectors found some gaps in risk and medicines records. These did not lead to a lower rating, but the manager agreed to update the records and improve checks.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take reasonable risks and learn skills for greater independence.
“People were supported to have choice, control and independence within their lives.” from the report
Community links
People were supported to take part in community life, employment and education, and to keep in touch with loved ones.
“People were supported to access their local community, gain employment or access education.” from the report
Staff training
Training and induction were in place, and staff were given time to understand people's care plans before working alone.
“New staff were inducted into the service before they completed any work alone.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including appropriate protective equipment, cleaning and support for visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingOne person's anxiety strategies were not included in their risk assessment. A separate assessment was also needed for the risk of secondhand smoke to other residents.
“However, one person's notes showed how staff used strategies to alleviate one person's anxieties, but this had not been reflected in their risk assessments.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingStaff did not always record why as-needed medicines were given or not given. A protocol had also not been updated after a dose change, although staff administered the medicine correctly.
“When people were administered 'as required' (PRN) medicine, staff had not always recorded the reason it had been given.” from the report
Recruitment paperwork
minorRecruitment checks were in place, but some interview questions were missing from the records.
“However, interview questions were missing.” from the report
Complaint recording
minorThe manager said there had been no complaints, but a person said they had made one. The manager was setting up a log for smaller issues and concerns.
“The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints. However, a person told us that they had made a complaint.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure reasons for giving or not giving as-needed medicines are recorded consistently?
- 02Have you updated the risk assessment for anxiety strategies, and how do you check that care records match what staff do?
- 03What assessment is now in place for the risks of secondhand smoke to other residents?
- 04How are smaller concerns and complaints recorded and followed up?
- 05What extra checks are now made during audits to keep paperwork up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures, and it reviewed care, staffing, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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 2017
The Orchard was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 January 2017. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home and four staff members. They observed care, reviewed three care records, three staff recruitment files and the home’s management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable staff training and personalised care. People were involved in decisions, supported with food and healthcare, and treated with dignity and respect.
The home had systems for managing risks, complaints and quality checks. A registered manager was in post. The report does not identify any breaches, enforcement action or areas requiring a formal rating improvement.
Enough staff
The home had enough staff to provide care promptly. Inspectors also saw staff spending unhurried time with people and supporting activities.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their care and support needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff had medicines training and their competence was checked. Medicines were stored safely and records were accurate and regularly audited.
“People could be assured that they would receive their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and changing needs. Care plans were reviewed and support was adjusted when people became more or less independent.
“Staff took time to get to know people and ensured that people's care was tailored to their individual needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager, area manager and provider carried out regular audits. When an issue was found, an action plan was used and progress was checked.
“People's quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely action was taken to make improvements when necessary.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the home support people when their mental health starts to deteriorate?
- 02How are care plans reviewed with the person, and how quickly are they changed when needs alter?
- 03What training and supervision do staff receive in mental health support and medicines?
- 04How would the home support my relative to become more independent while keeping them safe?
- 05How are complaints or concerns recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, staffing, recruitment and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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 The Orchard
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 April 2015.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.