Orchid Woodlands Healthcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans included information about people’s backgrounds, likes and dislikes, to ensure staff had a better understanding of people and how they wanted to be cared for. Overall, care plans were detailed and provided guidance for staff on meeting people’s needs and preferences. We identified some minor discrepancies between information contained in the summary section of some people’s care records and what was listed in their care plans and/or risk assessments. However, this did not have an impact on the care provided. The information had been overlooked when the care plan had been reviewed and updated.

People and relatives, we spoke with could not recall seeing the care plan or being asked to review this, which providers should ensure occurs. Comments included, “I have never seen my care plan” and “My husband and I have not seen [relative’s] care plan, nor been asked what makes [relative] an individual”.

We also received mixed feedback about the provision of activities. Some people told us they did not get involved as what was on offer was not of interest to them. Some said limited activities were provided and they were often bored, whereas others said they were happy with the frequency and type of activities on offer. Comments included, “There aren't many activities during the day, it can be boring. Sometimes there are entertainers who call in”, “I don't like any of the activities that are offered here” and “I visit often and have seen [relative] doing ball games, skittles, keep fit and things like that. [Activity coordinator] is very encouraging and likes to involve as many as they can.”

The home had an activity coordinator, who had only been in post for a few months and was still in the process of setting up a full activities programme. They kept a log of what activities had been offered each day. Records showed a mixture of activities were completed, some group and some individual. However, further work was needed to ensure activities met the needs of all people living at the home and catered to individual preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood the diverse needs of people and made sure the care and support they provided was in line with their individual needs and preferences. A ‘moving on’ policy was in place to ensure transitions, whether that be into another care home, the hospital or into the community were completed safely and effectively. We saw evidence of the provider, management and care staff working with social workers to facilitate admissions and discharges and ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication care plans which explained any difficulties they had and how best to communicate with them. As a result, staff understood people’s communication needs and provided information in a way people could understand.

We noted Information was on display which explained about the accessible information standard, which is a legal requirement for NHS and adult social care organisations to ensure people with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss can access information and communicate effectively. People were encouraged to discuss their needs openly to ensure they were met. The provider was able to provide information in a number of alternative formats, such as large font easy read and different languages.

Consideration had been given to ensuring posters and/or notices on display were accessible to everyone, this was done through the choice of font size and use of imagery.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People’s views and opinions had been captured via regular ‘resident consultations’. These were either held as standalone consultation meetings, or as part of the resident meeting. We noted people had been asked for their views and opinions on refurbishment and décor, to decide the name of the new hairdressing and nail salon, what they would like in the garden and what sorts of activities they would like to take part in.

Only one specific relatives’ meeting had been held so far this year, in July 2025. However, relatives were welcome to attend resident meetings and consultations. We discussed with the provider how it may be useful to have a yearly meeting schedule on display for both resident and relative meetings, so people could plan their attendance in advance. They agreed to look into this moving forwards.

Annual relative surveys were sent out electronically by the provider, however, none had been completed and returned to date. As a result, paper questionnaires were being handed to relatives when they visited the home. We looked at some recently completed ones, which contained a mixture of statements about the home and care provided which relatives were asked to score, as well as some open-ended questions to gather qualitative feedback. Overall feedback provided had been positive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received care and support at the times of their choosing. Staff were flexible and accommodated changes when people wanted this.

As the provider used an electronic care planning system along with other online systems and processes, they needed to ensure people were not digitally excluded. We looked at how they achieved this, and noted care plans, risk assessment and monitoring charts could all be provided in paper form should this be requested. The provider told us any access issues were discussed as part of the assessment process.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff understood people’s right to receive care and support that met their individual needs. As part of the admission process, people and/or their next of kin, were supported to complete a ‘This is Me’ document. This helped ensure information about people’s individual needs and wishes in relation to any protected characteristics, was available and used when completing the care planning process.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people had chosen to discuss these, their wishes regarding end-of-life care were captured within an advanced care plan. The care home had formed links with a local hospice and were signed up to complete a number of training sessions, which would help ensure good quality palliative care was being provided and staff had the skills and knowledge required to do so. Documentation shared by the hospice was being used in the home, when people were in receipt of palliative care.