You are here

Orford House Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 January 2019

This inspection took place on 4 and 6 December 2018.At our last inspection of the service in November 2017 we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. This was because staff were insufficiently prepared to respond to a fire emergency, they did not receive supervision or appraisal and quality assurance processes were not robust. We rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ in the domains of ‘Safe’, ‘Effective’ and ‘Well-led’.

At this inspection we found the service had improved in relation to each key question and as a result the service’s overall rating has risen to ‘Good’.

Orford House Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Orford House Residential Home accommodates up to 29 people in one adapted building. The service specialises in supporting older people some of whom maybe living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager of the service had submitted an application to register with CQC shortly before our inspection.

People’s safety was enhanced by the preparedness of staff to respond to emergencies. Staff received on-going training to ensure they were clear about their roles and responsibilities in safeguarding people from improper treatment and the provider took prompt and decisive action where safeguarding concerns arose. Risk assessments were in place to reduce people’s risks of experiencing avoidable harm. The provider ensured that staff were safe and suitable to deliver care and support. The environment of the care home was clean.

People’s assessed needs were met by trained, supervised and appraised staff. People’s mental capacity was assessed and supported. People ate well and staff supported them to access healthcare services whenever required. People, their relatives and healthcare professionals were actively involved in successful transitioning into the service.

People and relatives told us the staff were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. People and staff shared positive relationships and visitors were made to feel welcome at the service.

Staff were responsive to people’s changing needs. People’s needs were detailed in their care plans which people participated in developing. People engaged in a range of activities made available at the service. The provider managed complaints appropriately. Staff ensured that people were cared for compassionately at the end of their lives and in line with their preferences.

The service had improved the robustness of its quality assurance processes so that action was taken where shortfalls were identified. Staff felt supported by the manager and encouraged to share their views regarding improvements to the service. The provider sought and responded to feedback from people and relatives and made information available to them. People benefitted from the provider’s partnership working with external organisations.

Inspection areas



Updated 30 January 2019

The service was safe. Assessments and clear procedures were in place and understood by staff to respond to fire emergencies.

Staff were trained and understood their role to safeguard people from abuse.

People had their risks assessed and plans were in place to reduce them.

People were supported by safe and suitable staff.

Staff administered medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions.



Updated 30 January 2019

The service was effective. Staff were supervised and appraised.

Staff received on-going training to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink well.

Healthcare professionals visited the service to support people when required

People were treated in line with mental capacity legislation.



Updated 30 January 2019

The service remains caring.



Updated 30 January 2019

The service continued to be responsive.



Updated 30 January 2019

The service was well-led. Robust quality assurance processes were in place.

Staff felt supported by the manager and the provider organisation.

Staff were encouraged to share their views about improving the care and support people received.

The provider responded to feedback from people and their relatives.

The service worked collaboratively with external organisations to achieve positive outcomes for people.