Orchard Views Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

During our assessment we found concerns around the quality of care due to the lack of robust systems and provider oversight. People did not always receive care that was person centred or have choice or control over their care, treatment or wellbeing. The provider had not ensured people were provided with regular meaningful activities, linked to their hobbies, interests or culture.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People and relatives were mainly positive about the promotion of independence choice and control. A relative told us, “I think [person] deals with things himself where [person] can, but they encourage [person] to be independent where it is safe to do so.” Another said, “Staff know [person] well enough to respect [person’s] choices and support [person] in whatever [person] wants to do.” There was a lack of person-centred activities to promote health and wellbeing. People and their relatives told us they would like more activities and stimulation. “I think I would class most of the staff as friendly and helpful, but I am not sure their care stretches to supporting [Name] to stretch themselves and not hide away in their room.” Another told us, “I don’t know what sort of structure there is for stimulation there. We don’t see much going on when we visit.” Family and friends were welcomed to visit but sometimes found it difficult to get in and out of the building due to staff availability. Our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.

Some staff felt that they didn’t have time to spend time with people. One commented, “More task focussed than actually caring for residents.” Another commented that, “Residents were bored a lot of the time.”

We saw no stimulation or meaningful activities throughout the day on both our visits. Interactions we saw were mainly task focussed. Most staff were seen to be kind and considerate and to check with people before carrying out support. However, we noticed that some staff were failing to respond to requests from senior staff to provide timely and appropriate person-centred support. We noticed one person wearing stained night wear in the afternoon of our second visit. They told us they had been waiting 3 months for staff to purchase new clothes following a change of weight so were having to wear their night wear both day and night.

The provider did not have sufficient oversight to ensure there was effective leadership to promote an environment that was person-centred. Effective systems and processes were not in place to ensure all staff had a good understanding of person-centred care, promoting people’s independence or providing sufficient meaningful activities.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.