Church View

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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.

This is the first inspection of the service since the provider changed legal entity. At this inspection the rating is good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessment documents were detailed and reflected information from people, relatives and professionals. Staff understood people’s health needs well, including complex conditions such as PEG feeding, diabetes, dementia, emotional distress and frailty. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and assessments included clear instructions for managing specific risks such as aspiration, skin integrity, pain and nutritional needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff used recognised tools such as MUST screening, wound assessment charts, as well as trailing new approaches to pain assessment.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Handover processes were effective, and staff told us communication was strong. Professionals consistently described collaborative working, noting that staff provided clear updates, escalated concerns early and coordinated input from wider health professionals.

We saw examples of strong teamwork during complex situations, such as managing wound care, supporting emotional distress, coordinating care and monitoring people at risk of aspiration or deterioration.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff promoted healthy lifestyles and encouraged people to engage in meaningful activities, drink fluids, eat well and maintain mobility where appropriate. People with diabetes were supported to make informed choices, and staff encouraged healthier options while respecting autonomy.

Staff recognised early signs of deterioration and acted quickly, including escalating changes in breathing, infections, pain or cognitive decline. Close monitoring enabled timely hospital admissions where clinically necessary, helping prevent avoidable harm.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People experienced strong clinical outcomes, including improvements in nutrition, emotional wellbeing, wound healing, engagement and mobility. Incident analysis showed patterns clearly linked to people’s complexity rather than care quality issues.

Professionals described improvements in people’s stability and wellbeing after moving into the home. Staff were proactive in escalating concerns, challenging clinical decisions when needed, and ensuring people received ongoing professional input.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff explained care clearly and encouraged people to make choices wherever possible. MCA assessments were generally in place and demonstrated good understanding of capacity and best‑interest processes.

Care plans showed staff used appropriate strategies to support decision‑making, such as involving relatives, using reassurance or using visual prompts for people living with dementia.