Orchard Views Residential Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 25 February 2025 to 3 March 2025. The service is a residential care at home service providing support to older people, some of whom were living with dementia. The service can support up to 40 people, at the time of our assessment 6 people were living at the service. This service has been in Special Measures since 6 November 2024. Since our last assessment the Local Authority was no longer contracting with Orchard Views. The provider demonstrated improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures. At our last assessment we found breaches in regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and governance. We were previously concerned about the management of risks, management of medicines, care planning and quality management. While we found some improvements had been made, there were ongoing concerns in relation to governance and managing risks posed to people. The provider remained in breach of these regulations. The service is now rated requires improvement. Since our last assessment the provider had recruited a new manager, and we received positive feedback about them. The new manager had plans in place to implement new systems and processes, these required embedding into practice. Staff told us the culture and communication had improved. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of this service

While people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. There was a lack of stimulation and meaningful activities for people. People’s care records did not always contain accurate and up to date information, meaning risks posed to people were not always mitigated. The environment did not always promote safety, and we found some staff did not always promote safe infection control practices. People were supported by enough staff and people told us staff were kind and caring. Comments included, “All the staff are kind and helpful, my relatives are impressed by the staff too. Staff are good they have gone over and above”, “It is brilliant here, 10 out of 10. The staff are brilliant.” People told us they enjoyed the food and staff gave them choices. One person said, “I am as well as can be. The staff look after and take care of me.” And another person said, “Yes (I like the food), I love the puddings.”