The Orchard Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Lessons had been learnt since the last assessment. The provider acted upon the findings and used the last assessment as a learning opportunity to improve the safety of the care provided at The Orchard. For example, the provider reviewed all mental capacity assessments to ensure all people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act. The provider had examples of poor assessments which they used to educate staff. Incidents were analysed by the management team and discussed at team meetings. This reduced the risk of reoccurring incidents, which promoted safety to people.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff told us, people were fully assessed prior to moving to The Orchard, staff explained this was a thorough process to ensure people transitioned safely between services. Care and support plans contained guidance for staff to follow to ensure people’s health was maintained. Referrals were made to health and social care professionals without delay. Where people had been referred to health and social care professionals care and support plans reflected any changes or recommendations provided. For example, a person had received guidance on how to maintain a healthy diet. Their care plan had been updated to reflect this. A relative we spoke with said, “Staff make sure [relative] goes to all their appointments and they go with them, they always pass any information needed to me.”

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans and risk assessments identified potential risks to people’s safety. This included risks such as people going out to the shops or other local amenities as well as risks within their home; such as smoking, managing personal care and sudden changes in their mood.

One person lived with a serious medical condition. Although records stated the person’s condition was well managed, should the person become unwell, guidance was in place to support staff to make the person safe and to reduce the risk of them coming to harm.

Each person had an individualised plan in place to ensure safe evacuation from the premises in an emergency. For example, for one person the process was provided in 2 formats; the first was an accessible format that explained to the person themselves in picture format what was the safe way for them to exit the building. The second format was a more detailed process for the staff considering the person’s specific mental and physical health and learning disabilities. This helped to keep people safe in an emergency. Parts of the home that could cause harm to people, such as cupboards storing cleaning equipment and the medicines room were locked and secure. This helped to keep people safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People couldn’t tell us about their medicines, however, relatives we spoke with said, staff supported their loved ones safely with their medicines. A relative said, “They sort [relative] meds, they are always given on time. There are no problems. If there were, they would contact me anyway.” Systems in place meant people received their medicines safely by trained staff. Staff received training in medicines and had their competency assessed. Each person had a medicine plan in place detailing how they liked to take their medicines. Staff recognised any adverse reactions to medicines and sought medical attention without delay. Some people needed support with the application of topical creams, staff accurately recorded when creams were applied. This helps healthcare professionals assess the effectiveness of the cream.