The Orchards Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last assessment shortfalls in governance were identified. Medicines were administered covertly, opened boxes and liquids were not dated and oversight and auditing of medicines was not taking place.

At this assessment the provider had ensured improvements in medicines management. There was now sufficient oversight of medicines and their storage. The regional manager maintained oversight of governance systems and processes. We saw audits identifying improvements in medicines for example, the storage of medicines, medicine competencies and people’s care plans contained detailed personalised information relating to medicines.

Staff told us leaders met with the team daily each morning. These meetings had a particular topic that the registered manager discussed with staff. For example, during our assessment we overheard health and wellbeing of residents and medicines were discussed with staff as a learning exercise. This meant a solution-based approach to care and support was now embedded within the organisation.

There were regular spot checks of staff’s performance and records showed the registered manager had oversight of any accidents, incidents or near miss events. There were formal processes such as staff recruitment, induction and supervisions and a range of up-to-date policies and procedures.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and people’s individual needs so that they could deliver personalised support to people.

The provider had effective systems in place to share learning across all services in its group. For example, following an incident at another home relating to topical medicines, the provider’s regional quality team produced a lessons learned briefing. This was shared with all registered managers during the managers meeting. The briefing included a summary of the issue, what actions had been taken, and what good practice should look like.

Managers were then asked to review their own medicines audit outcomes in light of the learning and report back on any changes needed. At this service, the manager used the briefing to update the medicines competency assessment and reminded staff during a daily meeting of the new expectations. As a result, leaders identified improvements needed in the recording of topical creams and implemented changes promptly across the team.

During our onsite visit, we observed examples of how the service had worked creatively and innovatively to improve people’s quality of life. For example, the service was actively employing volunteers to support residents with out of home activities. The provider ensured learning was taken from audits which were now being carried out. People told us this produced opportunities for them outside of the home and without volunteers supporting them to access the community, they felt they would have a less fulfilled life.

People told us “Staff are always adapting and learning about my changing needs”. One relative told us “[provider] works well outside of their remit, they are just fabulous we could not have done this journey without them, seeing [relative] so happy and engaged, and activities like going to the pub, is wonderful”.