You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

This inspection took place on the 15 August 2017 and was unannounced.

The Orchard is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to ten people with a learning disability. The home is a large detached building situated on a village style development together with other similar care homes run by the provider. It is situated some distance from local amenities and public transport. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living in the home.

There was a manager for the service who was in the process of registration. 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 recruitment and selection process undertaken by the provider organisation ensured people were supported by staff of good character. The number of qualified and trained staff was sufficient to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Routine health and safety checks were completed in accordance with legislation and guidance. Infection control procedures were followed.

People were provided with effective care from a core of dedicated staff who had received support and guidance from the management team. Care plans were detailed and included how people wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks to people associated with personal and specific behavioural and/or health related issues. They supported staff to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks. Staff treated people with kindness and respect. The service had regular contact with people’s families and representatives to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support the person received.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Consent to care and support was sought in line with legislation and guidance. When appropriate mental capacity assessments had been completed and where people had been assessed as not having mental capacity to make a decision, a best interests meeting had taken place. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were provided with the training and development they required to care for and support people’s individual needs through regular supervision, meetings and updating their training. The provider had taken steps to periodically assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This was undertaken by the home manager and delegated staff within the home. The process was carried out through internal audits, care reviews and requesting feedback from people and their representatives. There was evidence that any required actions that resulted from quality monitoring had been identified and undertaken in a timely manner.

The manager received consistent praise and positive feedback from staff, relatives and professionals. They uniformly expressed the difference his leadership had made to the service. We found an open and positive culture in the service and the staff team was supported to bring forward suggestions to better the service. There was a strong emphasis on team working and staff confirmed they worked well together. Standards of care were high as a result of the example set by the management team and their expectations. The staff worked hard to meet the standards and expectations set and took pride in achieving positive outcomes for people. There were strong links built with the community wh

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was safe.

Recruitment procedures were robust and thorough risk assessments were in place.

Feedback from a professionals indicated that people were safe living there.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse.

The provider had emergency plans in place which staff understood and could put into practice.

Staff had the relevant skills, experience and were sufficient in numbers to keep people safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was effective.

People�s individual needs and preferences were met by staff who had received the training they needed to support people.

Staff spoke regularly with their line manager for support to discuss any concerns or ideas.

People had their freedom and rights respected. Staff acted within the law and knew how to protect people should they be unable to make a decision independently.

People were supported to eat a healthy diet and were supported to see health professionals promptly to make sure they kept as healthy as possible.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with respect and dignity at all times and promoted their independence as far as possible.

People responded to staff in a positive manner. Staff knew people�s individual needs and preferences very well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff responded quickly and appropriately to people�s individual needs.

People�s assessed needs were detailed in their care plans and this provided appropriate information for staff to support people in the way they wished.

Activities within the home and community were supported and provided for each individual and tailored to their particular needs and preferences.

There was a system to manage complaints and people were given regular opportunities to raise concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 September 2017

The service was very well-led

Staff said the manager was very supportive, open and approachable. The provider and manager promoted strong values along with a person centred, inclusive and open culture.

People could have confidence that they would be listened to and that action would be taken if they had a concern about the services provided.

The manager was highly regarded by staff, relatives and professionals.