Orchard Manor Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 22 January 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment:12 September 2025 to 23 October 2025

The service is a residential and nursing home providing support to older adults living with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of the assessment, there were 85 people living at the home. The assessment was prompted by information we received about risks to people’s safety, including concerns related to unsafe care practices and governance.

We identified 3 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance. These breaches were based on findings that included inconsistencies and lack of individualisation within care planning, environmental and infection prevention and control risks that had not been effectively mitigated, and governance systems that had not identified or addressed these issues in a timely way. We have asked the provider to submit action plans in response to the concerns found.

The environment was not always clean, well-maintained, or safely organised. We observed several maintenance and environmental issues in several areas of the home, including broken fittings, unsafe flooring, leaks, mould, soiling and unclean bathrooms. Equipment was not always stored safely or kept hygienic, and there were gaps in the completion and/or recording of routine safety checks.

The home environment and décor were not always personalised and did not consistently promote people’s dignity. Some people’s rooms appeared bare, with limited personalisation.

We found inconsistencies within some people’s care planning records. Sections within care plans were sometimes duplicated or unclear, and guidance on when to escalate concerns relating to people’s health was not always specific. Some care plans contained generic wording that did not reflect their individual needs and preferences. Care plans did not always reflect people’s current needs or significant changes in their circumstances.

We observed continence products stored visibly and openly in people’s rooms and communal areas. Some people’s personal toiletries were stored on top of toilets.

Medicines were managed and administered safely in the main. However, protocols for medicines prescribed on a ‘when required’ basis did not always provide clear guidance to staff.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience, and managers ensured staff received appropriate training. However, staff deployment was not always consistent across the home. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how and when to report concerns. We observed staff were caring and committed in their roles.

Recruitment and induction processes were safe, and staff were supported to develop their skills, with some progressing into senior roles. Staff told us they felt supported to give feedback and were treated fairly.

The leadership team maintained links with external professionals and the local community. Professional partners told us they had confidence in the quality and safety of the provider’s clinical decision-making.

Following our assessment feedback, leaders evidenced learning and made immediate improvements, including to infection prevention and control processes and environmental monitoring. The provider demonstrated an openness and a commitment to improving the quality and safety of the service.