The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Orchid Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Guernsey Lane (Off Torun Way), Swindon, Wiltshire, SN25 1UZ (01793) 753336

Provided and run by:
Angel Care plc

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

22 and 23 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Orchid Care Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 83 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 78 people living there. The bedrooms are arranged over three floors and all have ensuite bathrooms. There are communal lounges and a dining area on each floor with a central kitchen and laundry. There is also a large communal area on the top floor which is used to screen films and host social occasions.

The home aims to provide people with care and support which derives from ‘Namaste Care’. Namaste care attempts to ensure that people are treated in a respectful and dignified manner and are provided with meaningful stimulation.

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 of June 2015 and was unannounced. At a previous inspection which took place in July 2014 we found the provider had not satisfied the legal requirements in the areas of care planning, staff supervisions, appraisals and training. The provider wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made. We found on this inspection the provider had taken steps to make some of the necessary improvements.

At the time of our inspection the home had recruited a manager who was in the process of submitting an application to become the 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 home manager, deputy manager and staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. Whilst necessary Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been submitted previously by the provider, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed when assessing people’s capacity to make decisions.

We looked at 10 care plans and found that guidance did not always reflect people’s current needs and identify how care and support should be provided. This meant that people were at risk of inconsistent care and/or not receiving the care and support they needed.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received. They said that if they had any concerns they could speak to either staff or the management team. They said they felt their concerns would be listened to and where required appropriate action taken.

People told us they felt safe living at Orchid Care Home and they were well cared for. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse. Staff knew how to identify if people were at risk of abuse and what actions they needed to take to ensure people were protected.

Staff providing care were familiar with the needs of people they were supporting and we observed that care and support was provided in a person centred way. People were involved in a range of activities within the home and the local community. The provider encouraged people to provide feedback on the services they or their relative received.

People were supported to eat a balanced diet. There were arrangements for people to access specialist diets where required. People told us they could choose what they wanted to eat and if they did not like what was on the menu they could ask for an alternative. There were snacks and drinks available throughout the day during our inspection.

There were clear policies and procedures for the safe handling and administration of medicines. These were followed by nursing staff and this meant people using the service received the correct medicines at the right time of day.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff we spoke with were clear about their responsibility in regard to infection control.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

15 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This was an unannounced inspection.  

Orchid Care Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 83 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 58 people living there. The service provides care to older people who have dementia and/or require nursing care.

The registered manager had recently left. A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of registering as the registered manager.  A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The previous inspection was conducted in July 2013 we found no concerns at that time.

We found that records relating to the planning of people’s care required improvement in some areas. People’s life histories were not recorded which could mean that staff did not have information to enable them to build a relationship. There were gaps in daily recording which meant staff could not monitor whether care was effective.  The overall records of staff supervision and appraisal were not clear so it was difficult to establish when staff had received supervision and appraisal. Records were not kept securely.

Staff told us they felt supported by management who had an ‘open door policy’. They said they had access to training which supported them to fulfil their role. However staff told us they did not receive regular, formal supervision where they could discuss their professional development and roles. Records we reviewed confirmed this. There were also gaps in staff’s training, including manual handling and safeguarding. This meant that people were at risk of receiving inappropriate care because staff had not received the relevant training.

On the day of the inspection we saw that people were well cared for and their needs were met in a timely fashion. We observed that call bells were answered promptly on all but two occasions which happened during lunchtime. This was when staff were attending to people who were eating in their rooms. People told us that they did not have to wait long if they called for help. One person said “Staff come pretty quickly when I press my buzzer. Not much waiting about for them” (meaning staff).

People told us they were happy living in the home and felt safe. One person said “I like it here. I like the people and the staff are wonderful and friendly.” A visiting relative also told us “They take good care of my mum. She couldn’t be in a better home.”

We spoke with a visiting health professional who was complimentary about the support given at Orchid Care Home. They told us “I have no concerns with the care provided here. I can give direction to the nurses and they follow what was agreed.”

We found that staff had a good understanding of how to support people, their individual needs and how to keep them safe. We saw that staff showed kindness and patience when supporting people.

There were audits in place which fed into an overall action plan to ensure the organisation continuously improved the quality of its service.

We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate policies and procedures were in place. However it was not clear in people’s care records how they were supported to make more in-depth decisions over and above the day to day choices being offered.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social care act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.  You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

23 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 10 people who used the service and five visiting relatives. We also spoke with five staff. One person we spoke with told us 'I was quite scared of the thunder and lightning last night. I called for staff and they came and reassured me'. Another person told us 'I can say how I like things doing, I get well looked after here'.

We were able to observe staff being responsive to the needs of the individuals that was in keeping with their guidance in their care and support plans. We saw that people appeared relaxed and happy sitting in the communal areas. We observed staff and people living in the home having a conversation about the royal baby and sharing a joke about possible names. We also saw that some people chose to remain in their rooms.

The provider and staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding protecting people from abuse.

Staff we spoke with told us that they had received a comprehensive induction when they first started in their role. They said they felt supported by the team and manager. Other staff we spoke with said they received regular planned supervision. Staff had access to training relevant to their roles.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of services provided. People living in the home, their relatives and staff were able to express their opinions.