You are here

Orchard Lodge Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 February 2020

About the service

Orchard Lodge is a is a six-bedded residential care home that was providing personal care to six people who have a learning disability, physical disability and/or autism at the time of the inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

A registered manager was not in post. However, there was a newly appointed manager in post who was in the process of submitting an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Health and safety checks and actions were not always completed. We found that there was a delay to the completion of required maintenance and there were outstanding actions from audits where maintenance requests had been submitted to the provider. Environmental risks were mostly assessed and monitored. However, we observed that the reviews for environmental risks lacked sufficient detail. People mostly received their medicines safely in line with their preferences and by staff who knew them well. However, the medicines systems in place were not always as effective as they could have been. We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.

Accidents and incidents were documented and investigated with action taken to prevent a reoccurrence. There were appropriate policies and systems in place to protect people from abuse. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff files contained the information required to aid safe recruitment decisions. Staff had regular support and supervision.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff demonstrated an understanding and awareness of mental capacity and best interests’ decisions and supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, records did not always fully reflect this and the manager had plans in place to address this.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

There was a strong emphasis on the importance of training and induction. Staff received training that enabled them to meet the needs of people living at the service. The manager was prioritising training compliance for the staff team to bring it in-line with the provider’s policies and procedures. The provider ensured staff had access to best practice guidance to support good outcomes for

people. People were supported with personalised menu planning and personalised bedrooms. The home worked with other organisations to ensure they delivered joined-up care.

People and their relatives were positive about the quality of care and support people received. We saw a warm and caring approach by staff with positive and kind interactions between staff and people. We observed staff responding proactively and sensitively to people and people were offered opportunities to be involved in reviews, but this was not always consistent. There was a strong focus

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 5 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 February 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.