Orchard Manor View

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment on 16 and 17 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. People using the service told us they felt safe, and relatives were positive about the care and support being provided. One relative told us they thought the home was “Very well managed” and people were “Extremely kind.” Throughout the inspection we saw staff interacting with people in a kind, respectful and unrushed manner, supporting people safely with mobility and equipment, while explaining what they were doing and providing reassurance. Staff promoted independence across every aspect of people’s lives, helping them to live as they wished.

Risk was managed safely and proportionately throughout the service. Medication management was safe and well organised, with strong oversight, and good engagement with GPs and other health professionals. People received their medicines as and when needed. We saw staff administering medicines safely, taking a person-centred approach.

The home was clean and well-maintained, with no hazards identified; appropriate safety checks were carried out, equipment was kept in good working order and regularly maintained. A relative told us the home was “Beautifully kept and immaculate, beds always cleaned and no smells.” Staff remained consistent, with no reliance on agency workers, and staff told us they felt well supported by leaders who were visible and approachable. There were systems in place to ensure the environment was safe. For example, the provider employed a maintenance person who oversaw all aspects of building safety.

Care plans were detailed, covering people’s needs and risks, supported by risk assessments for people with health conditions. However, we identified minor inconsistencies. Some care records required improvement to ensure information was clear, consistent, and accurately recorded. This represented a small area for improvement rather than a current risk to people’s safety and the provider was responsive to the concerns identified.

Staff consistently described the training and support available to them as positive. One staff member told us, “The training we receive is brilliant.” Staff understood their role in protecting people from abuse and knew how to report concerns and who to report them to. Risk assessments had been carried out to support people with health conditions. The service supported people to have as much choice and control over their lives, placing them at the centre of planning and reviewing their support.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and managers worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Stakeholders spoke positively about how the staff team worked with them. A health professional told us, “Staff demonstrate good knowledge of residents and show a strong awareness and communication. There is a sense that everyone knows the residents well and dignity is maintained at all times.”

Staff at all levels shared the providers’ vision of person-centred care, choice, independence and inclusion, and described feeling a part of the team regardless of their individual roles. The registered manager and their team had created an open culture in which everyone’s thoughts and feelings were valued. Staff consistently shared that the management team were supportive and approachable, fostering a collaborative approach to ongoing learning and improvement. One relative described the home as “Home from home” and said it “Should be a flagship for how our elderly should be treated.”