Orchard House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were systems in place to ensure lessons were learnt to ensure good practice was continued. For example, when incidents had occurred the leadership team had completed a ‘Positive Reflections and Lessons Learned’ form. This looked at what had happened, how it could be done differently and gave the team an action plan to work through, including sharing information with staff through their meetings. Staff confirmed they attended team meetings where learning was discussed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. This included both face to face and record-based assessments. The provider ensured there was an individual plan in place for people to ensure they had a smooth transition when they started using the service, this included working with people in their previous environments and observing their needs. People had care plans and risk assessments which were based on these assessed needs that were continually reviewed and updated when needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

People and their relatives raised no concerns about their safety. One relative told us they felt their relation was safe.

Staff told us and records confirmed they had received safeguarding training. They were able to tell us the action they would take if they had concerns. One staff member said, “It is protecting people from any kind of abuse, I know to share with the local authority if I am worried.” There were safeguarding procedures in place to ensure concerns were identified and reported.

When needed, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place for people.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

There was a system in place to ensure people had care plans and risk assessments that were reflective of their current needs. The leadership team worked with people, their families and professionals to ensure care plans and risk assessments were developed individually for people. The team worked innovatively with people to ensure they were involved with this process. These plans considered people’s mobility needs, health conditions and any known risks such as periods of emotional distress. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

People looked comfortable in their environment and relatives raised no concerns.

The environment had been adapted to meet people’s individual needs. There were processes in place to ensure any potential concerns or risks were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

We saw there were enough staff available to support people in line with their assessed needs and staffing they had been allocated. We saw people used these hours to participate in activities they chose, including visits to the local park and one person was attending a farm which they had chosen.

Staff told us and records confirmed staff had received training. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs. We reviewed the training matrix, and this confirmed staff training was up to date.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working in the home to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

We saw the home was clean and people were protected from the risk of cross infection. Staff told us they had received training and there was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for them to use. There were processes in place to ensure concerns with IPC were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Relatives were happy with how medicines were managed and raised no concerns.

We saw medicines were stored and administered safely. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow. Staff administering medicines had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people. Daily checks were completed on medicines and the storage of these.