You are here

Archived: C & V Orchard Residential Limited Inadequate

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 May 2014
Date of Publication: 20 June 2014
Inspection Report published 20 June 2014 PDF | 97.09 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 19 May 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we met with the acting manager, the registered manager from the provider’s other home and the home owner. We were told that the registered manager for the home had been absent from work for over a year. The provider told us they were unclear whether the registered manager would return to post. We saw that they were following procedures to resolve this situation.

We were told about interim management plans in place. We saw that the acting manager was at the home from Monday to Friday. We were told that a registered manager from another home attended twice weekly. The owner of the home told us they attended regularly to ensure that the acting manager received the necessary support to perform their role.

Previously, we completed an inspection in November 2013, where we found the provider was not meeting requirements for outcome 5: Meeting nutritional needs and outcome 21: records.

We completed a follow up inspection in March 2014, where we found the provider was not meeting requirements for outcome 5: meeting nutritional needs and outcome 16: Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We found the provider was also not meeting requirements for outcome 21: records. We issued a warning notice due to previous concerns in this area and the potential negative impact on people who used the service. We found that improvements were needed in these areas.

After the inspection, the provider sent us an action plan. This told us the action the provider would take to make the necessary improvements and by what date.

At this inspection we checked whether required improvements had been made since the last inspection. We also completed a combined scheduled inspection and looked at other essential standards of care.

We found that the provider had made the necessary improvements with respect to meeting people’s nutritional needs.

We found that improvements had been made to audits identified at the last visit.

We found that the provider had made improvements to record keeping at the home and had met the requirements of the warning notice.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection. We spoke with five people who used the service and three visiting relatives involved with their care and a visiting professional. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. We found that safeguarding procedures were in place at the home to safeguard vulnerable people.

We found that policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests when they do so. At the time of our inspection no applications had needed to be made.

We saw that risk management plans were up-to-date and staff said they received updates when people’s needs changed. People were not put at unnecessary risk. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure staff had information they needed so that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

We found that the home could benefit from a scheme of refurbishment. We found that repairs were required to floors and carpets which could present a safety risk to people who lived in the home. We found that these shortfalls had not been recorded in the home’s maintenance audits.

Is the service effective?

We found that people had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. Assessments included people’s needs for any equipment, mobility aids and specialist dietary requirements.

People had access to a range of health care professionals some of whom visited the home. People told us that staff referred them to GPs when they needed it. One person told us: “When I need a doctor they [staff] are straight on to it”.

This meant that people were sure that their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for and that they had the equipment they needed to meet their individual needs.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with five people who used the service and three relatives of people who were not able to speak directly to us. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. One person told us: “The girls are very nice” and another person told us: “They are very good people. Some lack a little patience”.

People’s preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Not all of the people we spoke with told us that they felt their rights, privacy and dignity were always respected by care staff.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at examples of investigations which had been completed in line with the complaints policy. We saw that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary. We found that systems were in place to make sure that the managers and staff learned from complaints. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they could talk to management about any concerns they had and they would be dealt with. People received surveys every three months to give feedback to the service about care they received. We saw and were told by people who used the service, that where shortfalls or concerns were raised, they were dealt with by the home.

We found from discussions with a visiting district nurse and with the managers, that there was a need for improved communication to ensure that managers captured concerns and acted on information to improve the quality of service provided.

Is the service well-led?

We found that the service had a quality assurance system in place. We found that in some areas improvements were needed to ensure the quality of the service continuously improved.

We saw that people’s personal care records, and other records kept in the home, were accurate, complete and fit for purpose.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to make the necessary improvements in relation to consideration and respect for people who use the service and the safety and suitability of premises.