Orchid Woodlands Healthcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

The provider used the referral form or local authority support plan, shared when placements are commissioned by the local authority, as well as their own internally completed assessments, to assess people’s suitability for admission to the home, ensure it could meet their needs and help create initial care plans and risk assessments. The presence of personalised information, including likes, dislikes and life histories, evidenced people and/or their relatives had been involved in the assessment process. We reviewed a number of care plans and risk assessments and confirmed these mirrored the information provided during assessment and reflected people’s wishes about how care should be provided.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We noted numerous examples of how the provider supported people to live healthier lives. People told us they had access to a range of medical professionals including their GP, nursing staff, and optician and dentist. Involvement of professionals was documented in people’s care records. A specific exercise-based activity, ‘Generational fitness’ was held once weekly at the home. The home activity coordinator also facilitated other activities which involved movement, promoted strength or hand / eye coordination, such as ball toss, parachute, walking, gardening club and stretching.

Care staff had been trained in NEWS 2 (National Early Warning Score), which is used to recognise signs and symptoms of deterioration in people from their baselines and to escalate as appropriate.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We found improvements were needed with the consistency and accuracy of how the provider monitored outcomes and delivery of care. We identified some issues with the monitoring of food and fluid intake, repositioning and recording of people’s observations. People’s fluid intake was documented, and a target amount was listed in their care plan, for example 1200 millilitres per day. However, where people had not drunk this amount, it was not clear if any action had been taken. One person’s care plan stated daily observations needed to be completed, due to a medical condition. During September 2025, we saw these had not been done on 7 occasions, in some instances over consecutive days. Where people required repositioning, to reduce the risk of sustaining skin damage, such as pressure sores, records showed this was not always done as frequently as stated within their care plan. One person’s care plan stated repositioning should be done every 4 hours. However, we identified at least 6 days in September when it had been provided less frequently than this. We raised these concerns with the provider, who took action in between our site visits to improve the quality of monitoring and record keeping.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s care files contained consent forms, which covered areas such as consent to care and treatment and access to their records by professionals.

Where people lack capacity to consent, unless they have previously appointed a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to make health and welfare decisions on their behalf, any decisions need to made by following the best interest process. This involves a group of people, often the provider, family members and relevant professionals, meeting to discuss decisions which need to be made, and agreeing what is in the persons best interest. Where necessary these meetings had been held, with best interest decision being made for a range of areas including day to day care, personal care, continence care, sharing of information and use of photographs.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are a legal framework designed to protect people who lack capacity to consent to their care arrangements, and ensure any deprivation of their liberty is necessary, proportionate, and in their best interests. Providers are required to submit DoLS applications to the local authority where people lack capacity and are being deprived of their liberty in some way, for example, not being able to leave the care home without support. The provider had applied for DoLS as and where necessary. We saw evidence DoLS assessments had been chased up, if not completed timely.