You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Orchard House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

Orchard House is a small care home that provides care and support for up to five people with mental health issues. The home is registered as a step down service from Shrewsbury Independent Hospital that treats people with a mental illness. The home is owned and operated by Whitepost Health Care Group Limited. On the day of our inspection four people were living in the home.

The registered manager operated more than one location and was not present at the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service was run. The provider had appointed a service manager to undertake the day- to- day management of this service. They were present for the duration of our inspection.

Medicines were managed in a safe way and recording of medicines was completed to show people had received the medicines they required.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s care needs. Appropriate checks, such as a criminal record check, were carried out to help ensure only suitable staff worked in the home.

Staff met with the service manager on a one to one basis to discuss their work. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and the service manager and felt confident with the level of management support they received.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Staff and people were able to tell us what they would if they suspected an incident of abuse occurred. Staff had access to a whistleblowing policy should they need to use it.

People were involved in their care and had a copy of their care plan. This was discussed and reviewed with then at least once a month. People’s bedrooms had been decorated to a good standard and were personalised by them according to their choice

People and staff interaction was relaxed. It was evident staff knew people well and understood people’s needs and aspirations. Staff were very caring to people and respected their privacy and dignity.

People were provided with a range of nutritious foods to maintain a healthy diet. People told us they planned the menus weekly. People cooked their own meals and had arrangements in place to manage this. We saw people had access to drinks and snacks throughout the day and made drinks for each other.

People had risk assessments in place for identified risk of harm. The service manager logged any accidents and incidents that occurred and put measures in place for staff to follow to mitigate any further accidents or incidents.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There was nobody living at the service subject to a DoLS authorisation.

Staff received a good range of training specific to people’s needs. This allowed them to carry out their role in an effective and competent way.

The registered manager and service manager operated an open door policy and we say several examples of this throughout the day. People felt comfortable to approach the service manager to seek their support and advice.

If an emergency occurred or the home had to close for a period of time, people’s care would not be interrupted, as there were procedures in place to manage this.

A complaints procedure was available for any concerns. This was displayed in the communal area and people had been provided with a copy of this, which they kept with their care plan.

People were encouraged to feedback their views and ideas into the running of the home.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were administered and stored safely.

People’s individual risks had been identified and guidance drawn up for staff on how to manage these.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and appropriate checks were carried out to help ensure only suitable staff worked in the home.

Staff knew what to do should they suspect abuse was taking place and there was information available for people living in the home should they need it.

There was a plan in place in case of an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the opportunity to meet with the service manager on a one to one basis to discuss aspects of their work.

Staff received appropriate training which enabled them to carry out their role competently.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. They had also undertaken training in DoLS.

People were provided with nutritious food and were encouraged to plan and cook meals.

People had involvement from external healthcare professionals to support them to remain healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff were caring and kind when supporting people.

People were involved in their care and had a copy of their care plan.

Relatives could visit as appropriate.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was responsive

People were able to follow their own activities when they wanted to.

Staff responded well to people’s needs. They were knowledgeable about the people they supported.

A complaint procedure was available for people.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager and service manager had maintained accurate records relating to the overall management of the service.

Audits of records relating to people’s care and the management of the service took place to monitor quality.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and service manager.

The registered manager submitted notifications as required.