You are here

Archived: The Old Orchard Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 21 January 2016.

The Old Orchard Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people living with severe learning disabilities, physical and sensory needs, including autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.

The Old Orchard Care Home is required to have a registered manager in post. 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. At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager.

People received a safe service. Staff were aware of the safeguarding adult procedures to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and had received appropriate training. Risks were known by staff and managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were recorded and appropriate action had been taken to reduce further risks. People received their medicines as prescribed and these were managed correctly.

Safe recruitment practices meant as far as possible only people suitable to work for the service were employed. Staff received an induction, training and appropriate support. There were sufficient experienced, skilled and trained staff available to meet people’s needs. People’s dependency needs had been reviewed and were monitored for any changes.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. People received appropriate support with their eating and drinking needs and independence was promoted. People’s healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The service worked well with visiting healthcare professionals to ensure they provided effective care and support. When concerns were identified about people’s healthcare needs swift action was taken.

The manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people’s rights were protected.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had an excellent person centred approach and a clear understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and routines. The provider asked relatives and visiting professionals to share their experience about the service provided. Communication between relatives, external professionals and the service was good.

People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support, this included participating in person centred reviews. Staff used excellent communication tools that were based on individual needs. There was a complaint policy and procedure available and confidentiality was maintained. The provider arranged for people to be supported by an independent advocate. There were no restrictions on people visiting the service.

People were supported to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice. Staff were creative and thoughtful and had a positive approach in providing new experiences and opportunities for people.

The provider had checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. These included daily, weekly and monthly audits.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was safe.

There were systems in place that ensured staff knew what action to take if they had concerns of a safeguarding nature. Staff had received safeguarding adult training.

Risks to people and the environment had been assessed and planned for. These were monitored and reviewed regularly. People received their medicines safely.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices to ensure suitable staff were employed to work at the service. There was sufficient staff available to meet people�s needs safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was effective.

The Mental capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood by staff. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been appropriately completed.

People�s healthcare needs had been assessed and planned for. The service worked well with visiting healthcare professionals to ensure people�s healthcare needs were met effectively. People were supported to maintain a healthy and nutritious diet.

Staff received an induction and on-going supervision and training to enable them to effectively meet people�s individual needs.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was caring.

The provider arranged for people to be supported by an independent advocate.

People were supported by staff who were very caring and compassionate and had a clear person centred approach. Staff had a great understanding of what was important to people.

Staff had fully embraced different communication tools to support people. They showed great respect and dignity in supporting and enabling people to be involved as fully as possible with choice and decision making.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s care and support was individual to their needs, preferences and routines. Staff supported people to pursue their hobbies and interests and were creative and responsive to new ideas and opportunities for people.

People were involved as fully as possible in person centred reviews about their care and support. People were at the heart of all decisions made about the service they received.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was well-led.

The provider had systems and processes that monitored the quality and safety of the service.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service.

Staff understood the values and aims of the service. The provider was aware of their regulatory responsibilities.