Orchard Place

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

This service scored 79 (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’s care plans were personalised and specific to people’s needs, choices and wishes. They held information about people’s previous job history’s, family members and interests. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of what peoples care plans entailed and were able to share specific details of people’s preferences. Where people required specific information in relation to their clinical, communication and nutrition needs, these were documented and had been reviewed regularly.

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. External healthcare professionals were involved in advising and supporting the care people received. There were regular healthcare professionals which visited the home, these included GP’s, nurses and SALT. All external healthcare professionals we spoke with shared positive feedback about the service and praised staff for following good practice and effective communication. The registered manager told us several local providers visit the service to offer different activities and group sessions, some of these included gardening, exercise and music groups. There were opportunities for people to purchase clothing from local retailers who visited the service every 3 months.

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider utilised accessible media from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) such as talking books. This enabled people with declining eyesight to continue enjoying books and maintain their hobbies. They also purchased call cell bracelets for people who may not be able to use a call bell to ensure they had the option to call for assistance when needed. This was then developed into the providers Accessible Information Standard (AIS) assessment documentation. People’s care plans had detailed and informative communication information which informed staff on how to communicate effectively with people. Staff also shared good knowledge of ways they could communicate with people. Relatives told us they were kept updated of any changes in relation to their loved one’s needs and communication with the service was good. The registered manager demonstrated good knowledge of AIS.

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. People told us they were kept updated and felt involved in any changes at the service. All of the people we spoke with were aware the provider had recruited a new activities coordinater as this had been discussed in a recent resident’s meeting. People and relatives told us they knew where to raise a complaint and would speak directly with either a staff member, team leader or the registered or deputy manager if needed. One person told us, “If I was unhappy about anything, I would speak with the team leader or registered manager, they would listen and take action if needed”. The provider sent out bi- annual surveys to gather people’s and relatives feedback, the last information was gathered in May 2025 and was very positive. Information was then reviewed by the registered manager; there was 1 recommendation regarding a specific type of food which was responded to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers and staff supported people to access care, support and treatment when they needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Referrals were made to external professionals when required. External health professionals told us staff were prompt to ask for additional support when needed and were responsive to any changes or amendments they suggested to people’s care planning.

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. People and their relatives reported no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences. All staff had completed the relevant mandatory training requirements.

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. Care plans detailed people’s choices and decisions and where they had chosen not to discuss this, it was clearly documented. People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. These were regularly reviewed by the GP.