Orchid House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was accessing the government testing scheme which assisted them to promptly identify an outbreak. The service worked with the local authority infection, prevention and control (IPC) team and other health professionals in managing the outbreak.

There was clear and accessible infection prevention signage throughout the home and clear communication with staff reinforced hygiene practices.

There was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as disposable masks, gloves and aprons. There were PPE stations and hand sanitising points appropriately placed in the home.

People isolating in their rooms had very regular contact with staff, who wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.

Staff also helped people to maintain links with their family and friends by phone and on-line. This also included producing colourful newsletters to keep people’s families and friends up to date with what people were doing during the COVID-19 restrictions.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Orchid House provides residential care services to adults with learning disabilities. It accommodates up to four people The home is located close to Rotherham town centre and has parking and public transport access as well as local facilities nearby.

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:

Medicines were predominantly well managed, although we identified some shortfalls.

Staff were trained in relation to how to keep people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and there was information available in the home for people using the service and staff about what action to take if abuse was suspected. However, we noted the provider had not always taken the required action when such incidents occurred.

Staff routinely promoted choice and independence, and spoke to people with respect, upholding their dignity. Care plans were highly personalised which indicated that staff understood people’s needs well. Care was reviewed regularly to ensure it met people’s needs, and where changes were required these were implemented. Each person had various programmes in place to assist them in developing skills and promoting independence, and again these programmes were regularly reviewed.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate background checks being made. Records showed staff received training in a wide range of relevant areas, and the deputy manager was enthusiastic about sourcing new training opportunities for staff to assist them in developing their skills.

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 systems in the service supported this practice.

People using the service were encouraged to be involved in meal planning and preparation, and people using the service told us they valued this. “We pick what food we like” one person told us.

There was a complaints system in place. We saw where complaints had been made, investigations were undertaken and complainants received a written response.

There was a system in place for monitoring the quality of service people received, and making ongoing improvements as part of the monitoring system

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 14 April 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

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.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Orchid House is a 4 bed care home, providing care to adults with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspecdtion three people were living at the home. Orchid House is located in the St Annes area of Rotherham. It is in a quiet residential area, but within walking distance of the town centre.

At the time of the inspection the service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, we identified that the home’s registered manager was not involved in the running of the home. The provider told us they will identify a more appropriate person who will apply to register.

Staff routinely promoted choice and independence, and spoke to people with respect, upholding their dignity. Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences, and care plans were highly personalised which indicated that staff understood people’s needs well. Care was formally reviewed regularly to ensure it met people’s needs, and where changes were required these were implemented.

Staff were trained in relation to how to keep people safe from the risks of harm or abuse, and there was information available in the home for people using the service and staff about what action to take if abuse was suspected.

Medicines were safely managed, and staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the medication system in use at the home.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for people to consent to their care and treatment, and staff had received training regarding consent and mental capacity.

People told us that the food available was good, and reflected their preferences. People using the service were encouraged to be involved in meal planning and preparation.

There was a complaints system in place. We asked people using the service whether they would feel confident to complain if they wished to, and they told us they would.

There was a system in place for monitoring the quality of service people received, and making ongoing improvements as part of the monitoring system

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with five people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said, 'I feel safe, I would speak to staff if I was worried about anything.'

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The manager had attended training to ensure he understood his responsibilities to keep people safe during their stay at the home. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place if required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People said that they had been involved in writing their care plans and they reflected their current needs. One person said, 'Staff supports me to eat well and keep healthy.'

Is the service caring?

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. For example, staff ensured people were able to go on holidays of their choice. People we spoke with told us about a recent holiday to Egypt where they had been swimming with dolphins.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home has its own adapted minibus, which helps to keep people involved with their local community.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Two people we spoke with said they were happy living at Orchid House and they would tell staff if they had any concerns.

We looked at how complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been dealt with in a timely manner. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The provider/owner has been registered with the commission for over 10 years and most of the people who used the service had also lived at the home for a number of years. Two people who we spoke with told us they liked living at Orchid House and would not want to live anywhere else.

The service has a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We also found the provider was not compliant because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained. We issued a compliance action. The provider wrote to us and told us the action they would take achieve compliance.

At this inspection we found the provider had made significant improvements to ensure systems were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. People we spoke with told us they liked the new kitchen facility. They also liked the new flooring downstairs.

People received care and treatment from suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

We saw that the care records for people were held securely within the building and were accessible and easily located.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had a good knowledge of the needs of people who used the service.

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

We found that the premises had been adequately maintained.

People received the care and treatment from suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate employment checks had been undertaken before staff began work. However, records did always reflect information about previous work history or a photograph of the employee.

Some records were not fit for purpose or absent