The Orchard

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People received care that was responsive to their individual needs and preferences and care records included information regarding their care needs. Staff we observed delivered care in a flexible and responsive way. For example, people were supported by staff who ensured they were constantly available for people when drinks were required, personal care and any questions people had. Relatives told us people were cared for and the home met people’s needs. Comments included, “The care given is person centred,” and “They do everything well.”

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. The service worked with healthcare professionals such as speech and language therapists. We observed staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and routines, which helped ensure care was delivered consistently. The provider’s welcome pack detailed the support available to people. The registered manager told us they focussed on ensuring they had an appropriately skilled staff team when supporting people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The manager and staff knew people well and understood how best to communicate with them. We observed staff took time to explain information and check people’s understanding. People had communication care plans which included guidance for staff on how people wished to be supported. For example, giving people time to respond and using pictures. The registered manager told us information was provided in appropriate formats to meet people’s needs such as pictures, social stories and easy read documents.

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. The provider had systems in place to record complaints and compliments to drive improvement in the service. The provider’s welcome pack clearly detailed the complaints procedure. Staff told us they supported people and relatives with any complaints by taking notes, referring to the registered manager and following the complaints procedure. The registered manager communicated with and shared updates with families and the provider held families association meetings. Relatives confirmed they did not have any complaints and the home “was doing a brilliant job.” Relatives told us they were happy with the communication from the home.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. The provider worked with healthcare professionals such as the learning disability team to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. People were supported to access the right health and social care services through well-planned and documented care. People could access all areas of their home, such as the living room, dining room and the outdoor area. People were supported with a lift to access to the first floor. The registered manager told us the service had an on-call system and an escalation process to support them in the event of an emergency.

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 treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. This meant people were less likely to experience discrimination. Staff ensured adjustments were made to enable people to access the community. For example, staff told us when planning outings, they checked in advance to ensure facilities were accessible for people. Assessments and care records identified people's cultural, religious, communication, and health needs, which enabled staff to provide care that reflected individual preferences. Reasonable adjustments were made where required to support people, for example, using equipment such as a wheelchair. Staff told us vehicles were adapted. People experienced care and support that was equitable, inclusive, and tailored to their individual needs. The registered manager told us they researched sites in advance when supporting people in the community. For example, when planning an outing to the beach. Relatives feedback confirmed people were supported to access activities outside of the village including visiting their families, going out for lunch, and the beach.

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. People’s records included information on how they wished to be supported at the end of their life. The registered manager told us they involved people and other important representatives such as, family when planning for the future including at the end of life.