Orchard Manor View

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. 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 was exceptional at making 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.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach by adapting activities to ensure everyone could take part, regardless of individual abilities or interests. We saw clear examples of staff going the extra mile to ensure people were included. During a quiz, the activities coordinator ran the session with people at the table, then noticed a person had not been able to take part in the same way so they sat down beside them and went through the quiz individually, so they did not miss out. The activities coordinator also recognised some resources did not reflect the interests among residents and took the initiative to source more suitable items based on people’s individual hobbies and interest, including visiting a local charity shop to find specific items. Similarly, if puzzles proving too difficult for some people, they managed to source more accessible alternatives. Activities were adapted for people living with dementia or limited mobility including weekly exercise sessions. People who remained in their room were not excluded; the therapy dog was taken to them and staff continued to offer participation rather than assuming reduced engagement. Where residents declined to join in, staff continued to offer opportunities without pressure, recognising that engagement could happen naturally over time. This reflected a genuine respect for choice, rather than an assumption non-participation meant disengagement.

Staff were attentive to signs of confusion during activities, offering people reassurance and staff told us they would support one another if they needed assistance, indicating an open culture around managing distress sensitively. Families were involved in shaping activities; consent was sought from relatives. A newsletter was also developed to gather ideas from residents and families. These examples reflected a consistent, individualised approach across different needs and circumstances, rather than a generic activities programme applied.

Staff celebrated significant milestones for people. Two residents who reached their 100 birthday had parties arranged in their honour, with the lounge decorated. A relative told us it was “the biggest birthday cake I have ever seen” and described the party as “lovely.”

Individualised care was planned in partnership with people and where appropriate, their families. Care plans were developed and reviewed to reflect people’s specific routines. This individual approach contributed to positive outcomes for people, including improvements in mood, and reduced anxiety.

Taken together, these examples reflected a consistent, individualised approach applied across different needs and circumstances, rather than a generic activities programme, demonstrating this exceptional, person-centred practice was embedded in how the service operated.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.