Orchid

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 3 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

The service is a residential care home. There were 4 people using the service at the time of the assessment.

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability and or autistic people.

Our view of the service

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 4 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good in November 2019. 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.

We have assessed the service against The Care Quality Commission’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance, which was developed to make judgements 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 was meeting these aims.

There were enough staff on each shift to ensure people received care and support when they needed it. People were given their medicines when they were supposed to take them and were supported to see health professionals when they needed to. Staff were given the training they needed to support people safely.

Medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice. The registered manager showed us medicine administration records and the systems used to store medicines securely. Records were clear, accurate and up to date, and staff were able to explain the processes in place for ordering, administering and recording medicines. We found medicines were stored appropriately and checks were carried out to help ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's medicine needs and the importance of maintaining accurate records.

The environment was safe and well maintained and people had equipment to support their needs.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and this was delivered in line with people’s individual needs and preferences. Where people chose to take positive risks, staff respected these decisions and put proportionate, person-centred measures in place to support them safely.

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 that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about some aspects of their care, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Care was delivered by staff who received appropriate training for their role. One member of staff told us, “Naturally I am a caring person and decided to do this full time and do the studies. I just completed my QCF level 3.”

People who used the service had input into their care planning and were cared for in a way they had chosen. People were supported to visit their friends and family, and visitors to the service were made to feel welcome.

Staff listened to people and those important to them, involving them in decisions about their care and acting on their views where improvements were needed. A family member told us, “They communicate with me almost every day telling me how [family member] is and activities they have done.”

The service took appropriate steps to reduce inequalities, ensuring people received fair access to care and support that met their diverse needs. The service enabled people, and those important to them, to share feedback, raise concerns and be actively involved in decisions about their care.

There was a positive and inclusive culture, with staff understanding the service’s values and working together to deliver good‑quality care. The provider had effective systems in place to oversee the service, manage risks, and support safe, consistent and sustainable care.

Audits were carried out regularly to monitor the safety and quality of the service. These covered key areas of service delivery and helped identify any shortfalls or areas requiring improvement. Where issues were identified, action plans were developed and monitored to ensure improvements were implemented and sustained. Management used information from audits to maintain oversight of the service and drive continuous improvement.