The Orchards
- Care home
- 66 beds
- No nursing
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2019
- Ely, Cambridgeshire, East of England
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
2 ratings
Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.
10 months
since the latest rating was published.
10 of 121
rated care homes in Cambridgeshire are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
The Orchards: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in December 2025, down from Good.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Fen House (Good, 0.5 miles away) and Lily House (Good, 0.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Fen House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Lily House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Holly Cottage LLP Good, 0.6 miles away
- G Vera James House Good, 0.7 miles away
- G The Firs Residential Care Home Good, 1.9 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 5 December 2025 (assessment visit 15 August 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: 04 September 2025 to 10 October 2025. The service is a residential care home providing personal care and support to older people, some of whom have a physical disability, a sensory impairment or dementia. The Orchards can accommodate up to 66 people. At the time of our assessment, 53 people lived at the care home.
- Safe No rating
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
We found 2 breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We found some inconsistent and missing information around people’s known risks and health conditions in care records. We also found a lack of regular blood sugar monitoring for people with diabetes to help ensure their well-being. Whilst we found no poor outcomes to people, these monitoring checks and records were used to guide staff to help promote people’s well-being. This included new staff and or agency staff on how to support people safely and effectively. This increased the risk to people’s well-being being managed safely. Governance systems in place to monitor the accuracy of records held and the service provided were not robust. The improvements required found during this assessment had either not been identified previously by the service or had been identified but not been fully embedded and sustained.
There was a continuity of care when people moved between different services and staff worked with health professionals to promote people’s wellbeing. There was a reflective learning culture in place to improve the quality of the service provided, however not all improvements found were sustained. In the main staff were trained to carry out their role effectively, however we did identify a gap in training around monitoring a specific health condition. There were enough staff to meet people’s care and support needs. Systems and checks were in place to help recruit staff safely. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely. Consent and least restrictive practices were in place as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff listened to and respected people’s choice.
Staff treated people with kindness. In the main people’s dignity and privacy was promoted and maintained by staff. Both group and individual activities including links with the local community helped promote people’s well-being. Staff understood the importance of reporting concerns, and systems were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse.
People’s communication needs had been assessed, and they felt listened to. People’s end of life care needs and wishes were documented to guide staff. Complaints when raised were recorded, investigated and resolved where possible.
The environment was visibly clean and well maintained. Equipment and utility checks were undertaken. There was a business continuity plan in place to manage any adverse incidents. Staff told us they enjoyed their roles and were given the opportunity to develop their skills, and knowledge should they choose to do so. Leaders were visible within the service and led by example.
During this assessment the registered manager left their employment, however, the provider had recruited a new manager.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.
-
Effective
Good
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
No rating
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 5 December 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 5 December 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Alastair Rayner
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)1 inspection report, latest 20 February 2021. Latest assessment published 5 December 2025; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.
The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
- Provider
- Greensleeves Homes TrustBrand: Greensleeves
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 03260168 (opens Companies House)
- Charity number
- 1060478
Greensleeves Homes Trust runs 26 services in England, 9 of them in the East of England. 18 are rated Good or Outstanding and 8 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.
Other services run by Greensleeves Homes Trust
- O Broadlands Outstanding. Care home, Suffolk
- O Harleston House Outstanding. Care home, Suffolk
- G Borovere Good. Care home, Hampshire, South East
- G Broadacres Care Home Good. Care home, Norfolk
Getting help from Cambridgeshire County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Cambridgeshire County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0345 045 5202, Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
- Contact adult social care online
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Cambridgeshire County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does The Orchards provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists The Orchards as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does The Orchards have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 66 beds at The Orchards.
- When was The Orchards last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for The Orchards was published on 5 December 2025.
- Who runs The Orchards?
- The Orchards is run by Greensleeves Homes Trust. It runs 26 services in England, 9 of them in the East of England.
- What is The Orchards's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 5 December 2025.
Contact
- Phone
- 01353 885900
- Address
- 2 Forsythia Road,, Ely, CB6 2FU Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Fen House (Good, 0.5 miles away) and Lily House (Good, 0.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Fen House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Lily House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Holly Cottage LLP Good, 0.6 miles away
- G Vera James House Good, 0.7 miles away
- G The Firs Residential Care Home Good, 1.9 miles away