Church View

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed, individualised and reflected people’s histories, likes and communication needs. Staff used reassurance and validation for people experiencing distress, especially those living with dementia. Examples included supporting people with emotional distress linked to family memories and using preferred drinks, conversation topics or activities to settle anxiety.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff knew people’s health, behaviours and personal stories, which helped them identify changes quickly. Professionals described the home as proactive, prepared and well organised, noting that staff escalated concerns early and worked closely with community nurses, dietitians, matrons and GPs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Relatives consistently praised the quality of communication, describing staff as responsive, reassuring and thorough. Families said questions were always answered “with kindness” and that staff explained changes in health, nutrition and wellbeing clearly.

Professionals also confirmed that documentation for medical reviews was well organised, with relevant observations highlighted and concerns clearly recorded. The registered manager kept people and families informed during end‑of‑life situations and was praised for sensitive, consistent communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were encouraged to share preferences, such as meal choices, preferred routines and personal goals. Staff used knowledge of people’s backgrounds to initiate meaningful conversations and respond to emotional cues.

Relatives reported feeling involved and valued, and professionals confirmed that staff worked collaboratively with families during complex care decisions. Numerous examples from letters and feedback showed staff enabling people to reunite with loved ones, celebrate milestones and make choices about their day-to-day lives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service supported people with a wide range of complex needs and diverse needs, including dementia, PEG feeding, emotional distress, mobility issues and palliative care. Staff made reasonable adjustments such as supporting people who could not use call bells with regular checks, adapting mealtime approaches and using cultural knowledge to meet individual preferences.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced good outcomes that were linked to personalised support and responsive care. Staff monitored progress well and acted when outcomes changed. Staff also advocated for people to ensure they were treated fairly and had the same rights as everyone else.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End‑of‑life plans were compassionate and well co‑ordinated, with clear evidence of staff preparing families sensitively and ensuring people remained comfortable and respected. This was overseen by the ‘butterfly team’ within Church View.