The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Orione House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

12 Station Road, Hampton Wick, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 4HG (020) 8977 0754

Provided and run by:
The Sons of Divine Providence

All Inspections

6 February 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected Orione House on 6 February 2017 and 9 February 2017. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and the second day was a continuation of the inspection. There had been a previous inspection of this service on 17 February 2015 where all of the regulations we inspected were met.

Orione House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 34 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of inspection 25 people were using the service. The service is provided by Orione Care, the working title for the charity "Sons of Divine Providence." The home also has facilities and equipment to support people who use wheelchairs or hoists.

The home was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provided safe care for people. Although only a few people we spoke to could personally recall being involved in risk assessments or care planning, records showed that people who lived in the home had been involved in risk assessments and in planning the support they needed as far as they were able. The manager and staff had made some changes to the way people’s care needs and plans were developed which improved the overall person centred approach to care. A serious incident relating to a fall had been the subject of an external investigation and had resulted in a review and retraining of staff in the home’s policy and procedure regarding falls.

Care plans contained information about the health and social care support people needed and records showed they were supported to access other professionals when required. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Where people's needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided

The building was free from hazards and equipment was well maintained. Staff were trained in keeping people safe, in the use of specialised equipment such as hoists and in responding to any concern over poor treatment of people. We found the décor to be clean and that people’s rooms were well maintained, warm and comfortable.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff working in the home at all times and staff were supported by a management team and through regular training, supervision and appraisal. People we spoke with told us that when they needed assistance they did not have to wait a long time to receive it.

Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves staff had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received relevant training. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and knew how to apply it to people in their care.

There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacting with people in a calm, polite and caring manner. Staff supported people as and when required and were aware of the communication needs of each person. There were activities on offer within the service, with a dedicated activities co-ordinator and the involvement of all staff.

People were supported at mealtimes and had choice regarding their preferred meal. Food was nutritious and hot.

The provider had a clear set of values that included the aims and objectives, principles, values of care and the expected outcomes for people who used the service. The service had quality assurance systems in place. These ensured people continued to receive the care, treatment and support they needed.

17 February 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Orione House on 17 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced. There had been a previous inspection of this service in August 2013 where all of the regulations we inspected were met.

Orione House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 35 older people, including people living with dementia. The service is provided by Orione Care, the working title for the charity "Sons of Divine Providence." The home also has facilities and equipment to support people who use wheelchairs or hoists.

The home was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service provided safe care for people. Although only a few people we spoke to could personally recall being involved in risk assessments or care planning, records showed that people who lived in the home had been involved in risk assessments and in planning the support they needed as far as they were able.

Care plans contained information about the health and social care support people needed and records showed they were supported to access other professionals when required. People were involved in making decisions about their care. Where people's needs changed, the provider responded and reviewed the care provided

The building was free from hazards and equipment was well maintained. Staff were trained in keeping people safe, in the use of specialised equipment such as hoists and in responding to any concern over poor treatment of people. We found the décor to be clean but could benefit from a greater contrast in colour or signs, which could make it easier for people with dementia to orientate themselves within the home.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff working in the home at all times and staff were supported by a management team and through regular training, supervision and appraisal. People we spoke with told us that when they needed assistance they did not have to wait a long time to receive it.

Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions for themselves staff had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff had received relevant training. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and knew how to apply it to people in their care.

There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacting with people in a calm, polite and caring manner. Staff supported people as and when required and were aware of the communication needs of each person. There were activities on offer within the service, although some people told us that they could be better as sometimes they felt bored. We also noted that many residents had difficulty walking or moving about without equipment or staff support. There were exceptions to this, with some people who were more active being able to exercise more choice over what they did and where they went.

People were supported at mealtimes and had choice regarding their preferred meal. Food was nutritious and hot.

The provider had a clear set of values that included the aims and objectives, principles, values of care and the expected outcomes for people who used the service. The service had quality assurance systems in place. These ensured people continued to receive the care, treatment and support they needed. There were also meetings between the home and people who lived there, although the manager informed us that individual communication was more effective with the current people living at Orione House.

14 August 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were very happy with the way they felt involved and respected at the home. One person told us: "They are very kind here, and take the trouble to speak with you about anything you have a problem with". The home was managed in such a way that visitors were able to receive prompt assistance and advice with regard to any questions or concerns and the Administrator ensured that people felt welcomed at the home.

We observed the care being provided and saw that staff used appropriate techniques in assisting people. Staff interaction with people was professional and friendly, with evidence of individual attention being provided at various times throughout the day.

The dining room was clean and hygienic and was arranged to enable people to sit in small groups of three or four round a table. A choice of drinks was provided with the meal and cutlery, cloths and dishes were clean.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive and had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

24 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People who we spoke with told us that they were happy living at the home. They said that the staff cared for them and that they had the things they needed. People showed us how they had personalised their bedrooms. They told us that the staff treated them with kindness. Some people told us about improvements which had taken place over the preceding months. They said that they had found staff to be more attentive. A number of people mentioned the kindness and care of specific members of staff.

We spoke to the majority of staff who were working on the day of our visit. They told us that they felt supported and had good opportunities for training. They said that since our last visit there had been improvements at the service and these had made a positive impact on the lives of people living there. They gave us examples of specific things that they had done and how this had made someone's live happier or more fulfilled.

We looked at the way that the organisation monitored the service they provided. They had worked with external organisations to develop and use a number of systems which looked at specific areas of care. They had introduced checks to make sure that all accidents and incidents were monitored and that medication was managed in a safe and appropriate way.

7 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to see what action the provider had taken because we had identified concerns at our last inspection in health and safety and management of medicines. We also wanted to look at the care and treatment of people who live at the home and the support of staff. This is because some staff and other organisations have told us about a number of concerns in these areas since our last inspection.

We visited the home on the evening of Saturday 7th January 2012 and observed how people were being cared for whilst they had their evening meal and after this until 10pm. We saw that some of the support staff offered to people was kind and caring. However, we also saw that people did not always receive the support that they needed. Staff members sometimes ignored people and carried out tasks in a way which did not respect their dignity, choices and needs.

We spoke with some of the people who live at the home. One person told us that they liked it there and the staff were kind and caring. Two people told us that they did not like living at the home. One person said that they felt there was a ''hierarchy'' where certain staff members felt they were better than the people who lived there. They told us that the staff sometimes prevented them from doing what they wanted. Another person told us that they felt the home had ''deteriorated'' in the past year. They said that they felt the staff did not always know how to care for people.

Many of the people who we met were unable to tell us about their experiences of living at the home. We saw that some people appeared content. Other people did not appear happy or unhappy. Some of the people spent part of the evening in a distressed state and the staff did not comfort them.

We found that some improvements had been made to management of medicines and health and safety. However, we found that people's needs were not always being met and that they were sometimes at risk from the practices at the home.

The staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported and had the training they needed. One member of staff told us that the manager was ''very helpful and supportive''.

We met a senior member of staff from Orione Care and told him about our findings during the inspection. He agreed to look at some of the specific concerns that we raised and make sure areas of poor practice were addressed.

During the months preceding our visit, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames had been reviewing the needs of people who live at Orione House and looking at whether these needs were being met. They told us that they had made unannounced visits to the home and found some areas of good practice and some areas of concern. They also told us that Orione Care managers had worked with them to look at how areas of concern could be addressed.

15 February 2011

During a routine inspection

People who live at the home told us that they were happy there. They said that the staff were kind and caring. They told us that they liked the food, activities and religious aspect of the home.

Relatives of people told us that they liked the home. They said that it was well run and had a nice atmosphere. They told us that the staff had a caring attitude and that they liked the environment.

The staff told us that they were well supported and had the training and information they needed to do their jobs.