Orchard House

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

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

This service scored 75 (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.

Relatives felt care was tailored to people’s needs. The leadership team prided themselves on delivering individual bespoke care to people, which was demonstrated through the environment people lived in, the records that were in place for people and the care that was delivered by staff.

There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care, this meant people were at the centre of this.

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.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information or changes with staff so people could receive consistent care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. The leadership team confirmed information was provided to people in a format or language they could understand if requested. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs, what this meant for people and how to offer support with this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Relatives felt they were involved with their relations care, and they were listened to when needed.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

No concerns were raised with the support people received and had access to other health professionals.

The leadership team told us they worked alongside external agencies, including social workers who they could engage with if needed.

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.

The leadership team was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, if needed.

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.

The provider confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care. The provider could consider this as part of the assessment process where appropriate.