Church View

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first inspection of the service since the provider changed legal entity. At this inspection the rating is outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 89 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a strong shared direction and a deeply embedded, person‑centred culture. Leaders set clear expectations around dignity, compassion and inclusion, and these values were consistently reflected in staff practice. Staff described the home as “absolutely wonderful” and repeatedly told us that the culture was caring, supportive and motivated by doing what was right for people. There was compelling evidence that staff worked in alignment with the home’s values of caring and recognising true individuality and people’s and staff diverse needs. For example, staff were supported to observe periods of religious adherence through flexible break arrangements, awareness of individual needs, and adjustments that helped them manage their wellbeing safely. People experienced care that prioritised identity, emotional wellbeing and meaningful relationships.

Examples included supporting people to reconnect with relatives after years of separation, arranging personalised celebrations, and enabling people to express individuality, such as customised clothing protectors, personalised grooming sessions and culturally sensitive support.

Families and external professionals consistently described the atmosphere as warm, respectful and nurturing. Testimonials spoke of people being valued and supported to live fulfilling lives. A relative said the team made their family member’s last years “happy, settled, secure and comfortable”, reflecting a culture built on kindness and dignity.

The provider had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leadership at the service was exceptional. The registered manager was described by staff, relatives and professionals as “the best manager” they had worked with, and as highly skilled, visible and deeply committed to people’s wellbeing. Staff consistently told us they felt valued, supported and listened to. They spoke of leaders who were approachable, compassionate and actively present in day‑to‑day care. Examples included the manager supporting families through bereavement, joining activities, and personally helping to organise meaningful experiences such as picnics, anniversaries and personalised outings. External partners, including community matrons, geriatricians and the local authority, highlighted the manager’s strong clinical oversight, advocacy and partnership working. Leaders prepared thoroughly for professional visits, communicated clearly, and ensured that staff understood people’s needs and medical histories. Practitioners reported the atmosphere as consistently positive, with staff demonstrating high emotional intelligence and knowledge. Comments included, “The home always goes above and beyond” and “Church View Nursing Home stands out as a facility that consistently demonstrates a high standard of compassionate, attentive, and person-centred care.”

The provider demonstrated inclusive and impactful leadership beyond the home. The manager mentored other registered managers, actively contributed to the Liverpool Strategic Care Home Quality Oversight Group, and was recognised through national awards for compassionate, values‑driven leadership.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident leaders would act on them. Whistleblowing policies were understood, and staff expressed trust in management to address issues fairly. One staff member told us, “[I] would feel comfortable escalating any concerns, the support is here.” Safeguarding procedures were embedded, and staff described a culture where concerns about people’s safety were taken seriously.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff from a range of backgrounds felt respected and valued. Training records demonstrated access to core and specialist training, and staff confirmed they could request additional learning. Leaders were approachable and took time to understand individual staff experiences.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Audits across multiple areas, medicines, IPC, catering, fire safety, health and safety, equipment and care plans, were regular and thorough, with risks identified clearly. There was strong oversight of incidents, with analysis identifying themes such as skin integrity risks. Learning was captured and actions implemented. The registered manager was open and honest about recognising areas needing improvement.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service had extremely effective partnerships with external agencies and strong connections with the local community. Health professionals told us communication was excellent, with staff proactively escalating concerns, sharing accurate clinical information and preparing well for visits. Joint working with GPs, community nurses, dietitians, speech and language teams, stroke services and geriatricians resulted in demonstrably improved outcomes for people.

Staff advocated for reassessment when concerns arose, securing life‑changing improvements for example, re‑referrals to stroke services that enabled people to regain speech, mobility and independence.

Community inclusion was deeply focused on in Church View. People volunteered in the local library, participated in community events, attended theatre trips, and engaged with local schools and nurseries. Relatives consistently felt welcomed and involved. The home went to great lengths to maintain relationships, such as facilitating Christmas meals for couples, supporting bedside visits in hospital, and ensuring families remained part of the home’s community. We saw how the service included the community and regularly arranged events such as handing out Church View made biscuits to members of the community.

The shared culture further extended to community involvement with mother and baby groups. The home proactively created opportunities for connection, such as intergenerational visits, volunteering, sensory sessions with local nurseries and outreach activities, reinforcing a culture rooted in belonging.

The provider demonstrated an exceptional commitment to continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and wider local system. Leaders consistently encouraged creative and forward‑thinking approaches to ensure people experienced the very best quality of life, outcomes and equality of experience. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice and supported wider sector learning through research and shared insight.

There was a deeply embedded culture of reflection, openness and continuous improvement. Audits showed a high standard of reflective practice and transparent quality assurance. For example, incident analysis clearly demonstrated meaningful learning, with themes such as skin integrity risks identified early and effective action plans put in place. This showed a proactive, mature learning culture that consistently drove improvements to people’s safety and wellbeing.

Complaints were handled openly, with apologies, root‑cause analysis, staff reflection and evidence of improvements to prevent recurrence. Innovation was embedded in day‑to‑day care. Staff used trauma‑informed, person‑led approaches that produced exceptional outcomes. For example, supporting a person to move from PEG to oral intake through relationship‑building rather than compliance pressure. Also enabling people with severe frailty to regain mobility and engagement through careful reassessment and perseverance.

Leaders modelled learning and shared this across the wider sector. The registered manager played an active mentoring role with less experienced managers and contributed to city-wide quality improvement groups. This extended influence demonstrated a commitment not only to improving their own service but also to strengthening care quality on a broader scale. The service had a track record of exceptional practice recognised through national awards, nominations and sustained high review scores. Improvements were not isolated but formed part of a consistent, evidence‑based approach to raising standards.