• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Orchard House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

High Street, Leigh, Tonbridge, Kent, TN11 8RH (01732) 836320

Provided and run by:
Private Psychiatry LLP

All Inspections

03 July to 04 July 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Orchard House on 3 and 4 July 2019 as part of our inspection programme and to follow up on breaches of regulations from a previous inspection. The inspection in July 2019 was carried out using our independent doctor methodology and was the first time Orchard House had been rated. Prior to this, the service had been inspected using our community mental health methodology.

The service provides private psychiatry and psychological treatments for people experiencing mental health problems and who require specialist treatments. The service now only treats people over the age of 18 years.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Orchard House also support medico-legal work for people who require assessments for mental capacity, occupational health assessments and expert witness services, which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Dr Adrian Winbow is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

The Care Quality Commission previously inspected the service on 12 November 2018. We identified regulations that were not being met and issued the provider with a warning notice for Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment. We told the provider they must:

• Ensure they have completed an environmental risk assessment to ensure the safety of their premises for patients, staff and those living at Orchard House.

• Ensure they use a recognised risk assessment tool to fully assess, monitor and mitigate patient risk consistently.

• Ensure clinical documentation is kept updated to reflect patients’ risks and action taken.

• Ensure risk management and crisis plans are specific to people’s individual needs or presenting risks.

  • Ensure they have systems, policy and processes in place for reporting, investigating, sharing and learning from incidents.
  • Ensure they have systems and process in place to ensure they can deliver, monitor, review improve care and treatment.
  • Ensure they have a system in place to monitor and limit prescribing of medicines that have the potential to be misused.
  • Ensure all staff providing care or treatment to patients including children and young adults are competent, skilled and experienced to do so safely. This includes identifying any required mandatory training for staff to complete and discuss with them their learning needs.
  • Ensure they coordinate care and communicate with the community mental health teams where required.

We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found the service had improved and these issues had all been resolved.

Our key findings were:

  • The service provided safe care. Clinical premises where patients were seen were safe and clean. The service had enough staff who knew the patients and received basic training to keep patients safe from avoidable harm. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding. Staff followed good personal safety protocols. The service had systems to ensure medicines were safely prescribed and recorded. The doctors regularly reviewed the effects of medicines on patients’ health.
  • The service had a good track record on safety. The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Incidents were investigated and lessons learnt and shared with all the staff.
  • Staff developed recovery-oriented treatment plans informed by a comprehensive assessment and in collaboration with the patients. Staff listened to patients’ views and wishes and adjusted treatment to suit their personal experiences and needs. They provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the patients. Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up to date and easily available to all staff providing care. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • Staff received training, supervision and appraisal to support their skills and ongoing development. All staff worked well together as a team and with relevant services outside the organisation, where relevant, to provide holistic, safe care and treatment.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively and appropriately involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff assessed and treated patients who required urgent care promptly and those who did not require urgent care did not wait too long to start treatment. The criteria for referral to the service did not exclude patients who would have benefitted from care.
  • Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that the service had made improvements since our last inspection in November 2018. Both doctors had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Governance processes operated effectively, and performance and risk were managed well by all staff.

Dr Kevin Cleary

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Hospitals - Mental Health)

12 November 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 12 November 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The service provides private psychiatric and psychological treatments for people experiencing mental health problems.

Dr Adrian Winbow is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

Our key findings were:

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure they have completed an environmental risk assessment to ensure the safety of their premises for patients, staff and those living at Orchard House.
  • Ensure they use a recognised risk assessment tool to fully assess, monitor and mitigate patient risk consistently.
  • Ensure clinical documentation is kept updated to reflect patients’ risks and action taken.
  • Ensure risk management and crisis plans are specific to people’s individual needs or presenting risks.
  • Ensure they have systems, policy and processes in place for reporting, investigating, sharing and learning from incidents.
  • Ensure they have systems and process in place to ensure they can deliver, monitor, review improve care and treatment.
  • Ensure they have a system in place to monitor and limit prescribing of medicines that have the potential to be misused.
  • Ensure all staff providing care or treatment to patients including children and young adults are competent, skilled and experienced to do so safely. This includes identifying any required mandatory training for staff to complete and discuss with them their learning needs.
  • Ensure they coordinate care and communicate with the community mental health teams where required.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review their policies, ensuring they are comprehensive, up-to-date and accessible to all staff.
  • Review and operate a robust system to highlight and manage vulnerable patients. This should include documentation on the patients’ care records.
  • Review and operate systems for managing infection control, ensuring they have a policy in place and identify a lead at the service.
  • Review and operate systems to ensure they engage with GPs with regards to patients’ ongoing physical health monitoring and ensuring they receive all test results requested.
  • Review and operate systems and process to mitigate and review when patients decline consent to share information.
  • Review and operate systems in respect of lone working.
  • Review and operate systems that ensure covering consultants have up-to-date access to all patient records receiving care and treatment at the service.
  • Review and operate systems to monitor the number of patients on their caseloads to ensure they can respond to patients’ changing needs and prioritise urgent contact with patients where required.
  • Review and operate systems to ensure they assess and monitor patients’ physical health needs, and liaise with all appropriate health professionals needed. Assessments and care records should reflect this.
  • Review and ensure assessments are holistic and consider patients’ social and emotional needs.
  • Review patients’ crisis/contingency plans and ensure they are individual to their needs, they understand what to do in a clinical emergency and records reflect this.
  • Review and ensure all patient records are kept up-to-date and are an accurate reflection of discussions had and care and treatment provided.
  • Review and ensure the consultants receive continued professional development to support knowledge when treating young people.

Dr Paul Lelliott

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (lead for mental health)

31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients we spoke with who used the service were full of praise for the care and treatment they had received. 'I have had three episodes requiring care and I can't speak highly enough of Dr (name)', 'very impressed' and 'extremely helpful' were amongst the comments we received.

Patients had given their consent to treatment and to the sharing of information if necessary. One person said they had,' ' a very full discussion' and that the doctor ' ensured I understood the implications'.

Staff had been properly recruited and were qualified, skilled and experienced to meet patient's needs.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided to people.

There was an effective complaints system in place. Patients had been made aware of it.

26 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Private Psychiatry Limited Liability Partnership is an association of three consultant psychiatrists and a consultant psychologist, all medically qualified. They conduct their consultations at medical establishments across the south east of England where they have practicing privileges. There is a small office that handles administration. We spoke with one consultant psychiatrist, four people who used the service and all three office staff.

People said that they were treated with dignity, their privacy was respected and they had choices in their treatment. Comments included, 'yes 100% confidential' and 'I have absolute trust'.

People felt professionals gave them the time necessary to explore their problems. They felt that their treatments had helped them to make progress in their lives. People said, 'so kind makes you feel that you are the only person on his books' and '... provides me with a safety net'.

We saw that the qualified staff took care to ensure that people were protected from abuse. Training in safeguarding was up to date. We saw that the social services were informed about allegations or suspicions of abuse when appropriate.

Staff felt supported in their roles. Professionals kept up to date with developments in their field.

There were some systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service. However other systems designed to protect people who used the service had not been operated effectively.