We carried out a review of the data available to us about Orchard Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Orchard Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Orchard Lodge is a care home registered to provide personal care to young adults who live with a learning disability and/or autism. Orchard Lodge is a purpose built bungalow which can accommodate six people. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service. Each person had access to their own private lounge, bedroom, bathroom and garden area which had been adapted to meet their individual needs.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service:
Relatives and our observations confirmed the care and support people received was exceptional. A comment from a relative summed this up by saying, “Care has surpassed what we could have ever imagined!”
Relatives, professionals and our observations confirmed staff provided exceptionally safe care. People were supported by a small team of staff that fully understood their needs.
People received personalised care that was exceptionally responsive to their needs. There was strong sense of leadership in the service that was open and inclusive. The registered persons focused on achieving exceptional outcomes for people and their staff.
We found robust systems, processes and practices were followed and sustained effectively to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience harm. Risks to people’s safety had been thoroughly assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected.
People were fully supported creatively to live healthier lives by having on-going support to access suitable healthcare services. Care staff understood the importance of promoting equality and diversity by supporting people to make choices about their lives. Staff were given the support and opportunities to progress within the organisation. Confidential information was kept private.
People who used the service were treated with compassion and kindness and their privacy and dignity respected.
Safe recruitment practices were followed. Innovative methods to include people in the recruitment process were in place.
Medicine records reviewed confirmed people received these safely. People lived in an environment that was clean and free from the risk of the spread of infection.
Staff received a thorough induction process and had completed all the training required to support people safely. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals and were able to reflect on the care and support they delivered. Staff were able to access further training and development opportunities in addition to their mandatory training.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and live data recording systems in the service supported this practice.
People had been involved in agreeing their care plans and participated in reviews of the care and support provided to them. People and family members said that staff always asked for consent when carrying out care and support tasks.
People and relatives benefited from a robust data management recording framework that helped care staff to understand their responsibilities so that risks and regulatory requirements were met.
The provider had flexible ways of encouraging regular feedback from people who used the service, relatives, care staff and professionals. Views were gathered through questionnaires, telephone conversations, regular face to face meetings at people’s home and at staff team meetings in the office.
No complaints had been received in the last 12 months. People were introduced to lay advocates if necessary.
Comprehensive quality checks were available in real time as the provider created a bespoke live data recording system which could review all records and incidents instantly. This made sure people benefited from the service being able to quickly put problems right and to innovate so that people could consistently receive safe care.
Excellent team work was promoted and care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about people not being treated in the right way. Staff were clear about the vision and values of the service. In addition, the registered persons worked in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to support the development of joined-up care.
More information is available in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
Good (report published 11 November 2016)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection when we rated the service as good overall. At this inspection there had been further improvements which resulted in the service being rated outstanding overall.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
Orchard Lodge is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have the 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 is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. This is usually to protect them. The management and staff understood their responsibility and made appropriate referrals for assessment. Five people living at the service had their freedom lawfully restricted under a DoLS authorisation.
People felt safe and were cared for by kind, caring and compassionate staff. People were kept safe because staff undertook appropriate risk assessments for all aspects of their care inside and outside of the service. Care plans were developed to support people’s individual needs. Staff knew what action to take and who to report to if they were concerned about the safety and welfare of the people in their care. People received their prescribed medicine safely from staff that were competent to do so. The registered provider ensured that there were always sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe.
People were given a nutritious and balanced diet and hot and cold drinks and snacks were available between meals. People had their healthcare needs identified and were able to access healthcare professionals such as their GP. Staff knew how to access specialist professional help when needed.
People were at the centre of service and staff acknowledged them as unique individuals. Relatives told us that staff were kind and caring and we saw examples of good care practice. People were always treated with dignity and respect. People were cared for by staff that were supported to undertake training to improve their knowledge and skills to perform their roles and responsibilities.
People lived busy and active lives and were encouraged to take part in hobbies and interests of their choice. Some people were supported in education, sporting activities and all enjoyed being part of a strong social network. Relatives commented that their loved ones were well looked after and their wellbeing had improved since moving into the service.
People were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment and maintain their independence. People had access to information about how to make a complaint.
The registered provider had robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements. Staff had access to professional development, supervision and feedback on their performance. People, their relatives and staff found the registered manager approachable.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 23 April 2015.
Orchard Lodge provides accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability and who need personal care. There were five people living in the service at the time of our inspection.
There was 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.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a registered person applies the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. This is usually to protect themselves. We found that the registered persons had taken the necessary steps to protect the legal rights of those people living in the service who were being deprived of their liberty. However, the registered persons had not always ensured that people living in the service had been supported to give their consent to all of the care they received. This had reduced the registered persons’ ability to fully protect people’s rights when decisions were made on their behalf.
Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns so that people were kept safe from harm. People were helped to avoid having accidents and their medicines were safely managed. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new staff were appointed.
Staff had received the training and guidance they needed to assist people in the right way including helping them to eat and drink enough. People had received all of the healthcare assistance they needed.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff recognised people’s right to privacy, respected confidential information and promoted people’s dignity.
Although key documents did not present information about care in a user-friendly way people had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive. People had been supported to express their individuality and diversity. Staff had offered people the opportunity to pursue their interests and hobbies. There was a system for resolving complaints.
People had been consulted about the development of the service and quality checks had been completed. The service was run in an open and inclusive way and people had benefited from staff being involved in good practice initiatives.