Archived: Orcadia

Updated 19 January 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 December 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of inspection to ensure that people were present when we visited. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of either using this type of care service or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we checked information that we held about the service and the service provider. We looked at any notifications received and reviewed any other information held about the service prior to our visit. We invited the local authority to provide us with any information they held about Orcadia. They shared that they did not have any concerns about this home.

During the inspection, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people living in the home.

We spoke with a total of four people living there, two relatives and five staff members including the registered manager and the deputy manager. The people living in the home and family members were able to tell us what they thought about the home and the staff members working there.

Throughout the inspection, we observed how staff supported people with their care during the day. We undertook a tour of the building and with permission, looked at people’s individual rooms.

We looked around the service as well as checking records. We looked at a total of two care plans. We looked at other documents including policies and procedures. Records reviewed included: staffing rotas; risk assessments; complaints; staff files covering recruitment and training; maintenance records; health and safety checks; minutes of meetings and medication records.

Updated 19 January 2018

The inspection was announced and took place on 11 December 2017.

This service was last inspected on 9 and 16 August 2016 where we found that the provider was in breach of four of the regulations in relation to safeguarding, quality assurance systems and registration requirements. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of any of the regulations.

Orcadia is privately owned and is located within walking distance of Disley town centre. The home is registered to accommodate 10 people who require support with their personal care and day-to-day living. The accommodation consists of nine single bedrooms, set over two floors, all of which contain handwashing facilities. Access between the two floors is via a staircase and chair lift. There are three bathrooms, two lounge areas and a large enclosed garden. On the day of our inspection there were 9 people living in the home.

Orcadia has 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.

People were provided with care that was person centred, sensitive and compassionate. Staff supported people to maintain independence and there was an emphasis on everyone being involved in the daily running of the home and being involved in decision making in relation to what went on in the home.

The home was managed and staffed by a consistent team of support workers who were well trained and well supported. Our observations showed there was plenty of staff around the home to help people with their day to day needs.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who lived at the home were safeguarded from abuse. Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns.

Risk assessments were detailed and specific and contained a good descriptive account for staff to follow to enable them to minimise the risk of harm occurring to people who lived at the home.

Medication was well managed and only administered by staff who had the correct training to enable them to do this. There was a process for analysing incidents, accidents and general near misses to determine what could be improved within the service provision.

Staff were clear on the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and best interest processes. Consent was sought and clearly documented in line with legislation and guidance.

Menus were varied and people told us they had input into the menus and food preparation where appropriate. There was access to other medical professionals who often visited the home and were involved with people from a clinical point of view.

The building had been recently refurbished to include a new kitchen and chair lift. Both these improvements were in response to feedback from the people living in the home.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People were treated as individuals, and their choices and preferences were respected by staff. This was evident throughout our observations around the home, and the information recorded in people’s care plans. People were included in their care and support as much as possible, and there was evidence to suggest that person centred plans had been discussed with people and their relatives.

People’s support plans were person centred and contained a high level of detail about the person, their likes, dislikes and how they want to be supported. Activities were centred around the interests of the people living in the home and were flexible to accommodate spontaneous outings as well as more planned activities that occurred on a weekly basis. People were supported with employment and local community activities. There was a process to listen to and respond to complaints for people in the home and any visitors if they wished to raise a formal complaint.

The vision of the home was person centred and the staff we spoke with told us they liked working for the company. Quality assurance systems were effective and we saw that where issues had been identified action had been taken to address these.