Orbital 4 Support Limited

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 demonstrated an intention to place people at the centre of their care and treatment, but this was not consistently evidenced in practice. People’s care records did not contain sufficient detail about what was important to them or what they wanted to achieve. Although people took part in activities, there was no evidence showing how they were supported or motivated to lead full and active lives, or that discussions had taken place to explore their potential interests, strengths or skills.This limited the scope for people to experience and interact with the wider community or develop new hobbies and interests.

A lack of knowledge and application of current regulation and legislation meant the provider was not consistently delivering person‑centred care. Reviews of care and decisions about people’s future support were often made without full consideration of, or involvement from, the person receiving care. Their wishes and preferences were not always clearly reflected in care records and in how care and support was shaped.

The provider mostly understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, which supported joined‑up, flexible care and helped maintain continuity. People and their relatives told us they were supported by regular staff teams, and we received positive feedback about staff familiarity and consistency in the support provided.

Feedback from professionals was mixed.Staff sought support from external agencies when people’s needs changed to ensure they received the right level of input. However, this did not always happen in a timely way, and people were not always fully involved or supported to exercise choice.

The service’s communication systems reflected the principles of the Accessible Information Standard. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff understood people’s communication requirements, and we observed positive interactions that met those needs effectively. Information was available in easy‑read and pictorial formats where this was appropriate.However, where reviews and decisions had been made with regards to peoples care and support needs this was not always effectively communicated to the person in receipt of the support.

The provider had a complaints process in place, and relatives told us the registered manager was accessible and supportive. One relative said, “The manager is really good and is so supportive of me and (Name). We have a good relationship; I can always phone her.” The provider told us they had systems to promote involvement, and surveys for people and staff were completed in July 2025. However, they were unable to evidence these, so there was no assurance that feedback had been reviewed, acted upon, or used to drive improvements.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to attend appointments with healthcare professionals, helping to ensure their health needs were regularly reviewed. People were supported by a consistent staff team, which promoted continuity and stability. One person’s relative told us, “The staff are a core group and always cover sickness for one another”. People also had access to 24‑hour support from staff, and management could be contacted when required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Whilst some people’s relatives told us they were involved in peoples care reviews, the provider was unable evidence how they had involved people and those important to them in monitoring and reviewing their care to promote better outcomes and improve people’s quality of life.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, meaning they did not consistently have enough time or information to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care plans did not include details about their aspirations or goals, or how staff should support them to achieve these. There was no documented evidence that the provider had explored people’s wishes in relation to maintaining or developing their independence.

People’s end‑of‑life preferences had not always been considered as part of their care planning. The provider recognised the need for improvement in this area and was in the process of reviewing care plans to address these gaps.