Church View

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection of the service since the provider changed legal entity. At this inspection the rating is good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and could speak openly with leaders. This contributed to a culture where issues were identified early and addressed.

Staff understood incidents well and used them to identify themes, including skin integrity, infections and hospital admissions. Incidents were well explained and related to clinical complexity rather than unsafe care. Learning was shared through reflections, supervision and team discussion, including clear examples in complaint responses where the manager identified root causes and implemented changes.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Transitions into and out of the home were well managed. Professionals described the service as organised, proactive and prepared for medical reviews. Staff escalated concerns early and worked closely with community nurses, dietitians, matrons, and geriatricians. We saw good examples of continuity, including ensuring people received emotional support during hospital stays and maintaining relationships during periods of deterioration.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Records showed safeguarding procedures were followed appropriately. Where concerns had arisen, staff identified the issue early and worked sensitively with professionals to protect the person.

Care plans included risks relating to emotional distress, vulnerability, capacity and decision-making. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately applied for.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff used person centred approaches to understand people’s routines, communication and preferences. Care plans clearly described how to support people in distress, how to promote dignity during personal care, and how to encourage choice while keeping people safe.

Positive risk taking was embedded. Staff balanced this well with safety measures in place. People were supported to make unwise decisions safely, for example in managing diabetes and dietary choices. Staff encouraged healthier options while respecting autonomy.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service was clean, tidy and free from malodours. Bathrooms, communal areas and outdoor spaces were well presented. People’s rooms were personalised and homely.

Maintenance systems were effective. Staff used reporting tools and the maintenance team had clear processes for tracking and completing repairs. Regular checks were completed, including weekly call bell tests, monthly audits, water temperature monitoring and vacant room checks. Fire drills took place routinely.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels were stable. Staff across all roles told us there were enough colleagues on shift to meet people’s needs, and dependency tools reflected this.

Recruitment files contained required checks. Staff described strong support from leaders and access to training. Several staff had worked at the home for many years, reflecting positive retention.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies

The home had good IPC arrangements with readily available personal protective equipment (PPE), clean laundry systems and tidy storage areas. Refurbishment plans were in place. Staff and visitors described the environment as safe, welcoming and well cared for.

People with higher risks of infection, such as requiring percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding (PEG) which is a procedure where a feeding tube is placed directly into the stomach to help them eat safely, or chest infections were monitored appropriately.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medication audits were thorough and identified clear actions. Staff followed protocols for PRN, controlled drugs and specialist related medication. MAR charts were completed to a good standard and included clear instructions.

People with complex regimes, including those receiving PEG feeds, had detailed care plans with guidance on flushes, positioning and timing of medications.

Staff demonstrated good understanding of safe administration.