You are here

Archived: Orchard Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 February 2016

We inspected the service on 12 January 2016 and the visit was unannounced.

Orchard Court provides accommodation for up to 20 adults. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service. The home specialises in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and physical disabilities. The service is provided on the ground floor and has been separated into three areas, each with their own kitchenette, bedrooms and bathroom. The home has a large garden and is accessible for people to use.

It is a requirement that the home has a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place.

People told us that they felt safe and staff knew how to report any concerns. The registered manager had considered risks to people and had put in place measures to reduce these wherever possible. For example, where someone had epilepsy, there were clear instructions for staff to follow. People’s equipment and the premises were checked regularly to keep people safe.

The provider had a plan to keep people safe during emergencies. Accidents and incidents were being analysed to try to reduce them.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people and to keep them safe. The provider had checked new staff to make sure that they were appropriate to work with adults with learning disabilities.

We saw that people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were only being handled by staff that were assessed as being competent to do so.

People received support from staff who had received regular training. For example, staff had received training in learning disability awareness and supporting people’s behaviour that could challenge. Staff received on-going support from the registered manager.

Staff understood and knew their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had been supported to make decisions for themselves and where they could not, the provider had followed the legislation.

There was food and drink available that people enjoyed. Where people were at risk of not having enough to eat and drink, there were plans in place to address this.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals such as their GP and community nurses. We saw that people were supported to maintain good health.

People found the staff members to be caring. During our visit we saw people smiling and responding well to staff. People were being supported to be independent. For example, we saw that people were supported to do their own laundry.

People communicated in different ways and staff knew about these. We saw staff communicating with people using different techniques and styles.

Staff were aware of people’s interests and life histories. We saw that people’s bedrooms were personalised with things that mattered to them.

Where possible, staff were working to involve people in making their own choices. This was done in an individual way and staff understood how to support people with this

People were being treated with dignity and respect. Where staff were sharing information about people, this was done in a discreet and sensitive way. We saw that records relating to people’s support were kept secure.

People received support based on their interests and preferences. Where people could not be part of the assessment of their own needs, relatives had contributed to reviews of their family members’ support.

People were undertaking activities that they were interested in. For example, people were accessing the local shops.

People and relatives knew how to complain and the registered manager had resolved any concerns that had been raised.

Staff were supported by the registered manager. There were opportunities for staff members to offer suggestions for improvement to the support offered to people.

The provider had sought to gain the feedback of relatives about the quality of care offered to people. There were also regular audits to check that people received care and support that was of a high standard. The registered manager had put action plans in place where things needed to change.

Staff members and the registered manager were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Where necessary, the registered manager had notified the relevant authorities about important incidents.

Inspection areas



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was safe.

People told us that they felt safe and there were enough staff to maintain their safety.

Where people were at risk, there were plans in place for staff to follow.

Staff providing support to people had been checked before they started working at the home.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received training including working with people with learning disabilities.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People consented to their care where they could. Where this was not possible, there were legal arrangements in place to do this on their behalf.

People had access to the food and drink that they liked. Where necessary, people’s nutrition was being monitored.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was caring.

Staff offered their support in a kind way that made people happy.

Staff knew what people liked and interested them.

People were supported to make choices for themselves where they could.

People’s privacy and dignity was being maintained.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care based on their preferences and individual needs.

People undertook activities that they were interested in.

People knew how to make a complaint.



Updated 19 February 2016

The service was well led.

There were processes in place for staff and relatives to give feedback to the provider.

The registered manager was aware of their role and responsibilities and carried these out.

Quality checks were in place to make sure that people received a high standard of care and support.