Orchid House

An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The service were meeting the elements of Right support, right care, right culture.

Some improvements were required about how the service evidenced they were monitoring accidents and incidents for themes and trends. However, this had no impact on people, where an incident occurred staff had taken action to mitigate risks to people and due to the low frequency of incidents occurring, the management team had good knowledge of all incidents which occurred. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. People were supported in an environment which promoted safe infection control practices. People were supported by enough suitably qualified staff, who were recruited safely. Medicines were safely managed and risks posed to people were assessed and mitigated.

People had their needs assessed and had regular reviews of their care. Records were individualised and contained information about what was important to people. Staff worked well with partners, and professionals told us the service worked well with them. People were supported to work towards their goals and aspirations. People consented to their care. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At the time of our assessment, no one was required to have a DoLS authorisation in place.

Some improvements were required to the décor of the service. However, people had their own personal effects in their rooms and communal areas celebrated achievements of people, such as holidays and activities people had attended. People and staff felt listened to. Surveys were conducted to give people the opportunity to feedback about their care. People’s choice and independence were promoted, and information was provided to people in accessible formats. People were supported to be involved in community outings, social clubs and in house activities. People chose what they wanted to do each day and what food they would like to eat. At the time of our assessment no formal complaints had been made about the service. People received support from a range of external professionals to meet their physical and mental health needs.

Some improvements were required to ensure the management team could evidence what continuous improvements were being made at the service. People and staff told us the service was well led. The management team conducted various audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed their roles, and staff received regular supervisions. The provider met with the registered manager regularly, which ensured they had effective oversight of the service. The home had a warm and welcoming atmosphere. The management team worked well with us throughout our assessment and were receptive and reactive to our feedback.