We carried out a review of the data available to us about Churchill Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Churchill Road, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways:
• People were involved in planning their care.
• People were supported to follow their interests and set their own goals.
• People had good access to their local community and opportunities to meet people and were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family.
People were supported by a small but consistent team of long-term staff who were kind and caring. Because people had lived at the service for many years and staff had worked there for a long time, staff had good relationships with people and knew them well. One person we spoke with told us they liked living at the service.
Both people living at the service were independent in many aspects of their lives. Staff supported people to manage their anxieties and enabled them to be happy doing the things they wanted to do.
Staff knowledge in relation to people’s condition, their needs, and how to support them was thorough.
Care plans were person centred and included people’s personal goals for the year. There was a focus on providing people with a clear timetable and consistent support. This resulted in people being relaxed and being able to enjoy doing things they wanted to do.
There was an open culture where staff and people could raise concerns or issues.
Rating at last inspection: Good (September 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue our on-going monitoring of the service and all information we receive. We will use this information to determine when we next inspect the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Churchill Road provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people. There were two people living at the home when we inspected. The registered manager told us people had a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome in the completed provider information return. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they planned to make.
Churchill is situated in the town of Nailsworth close to local shops and amenities. The home is arranged over two floors which are accessible by stairs. All bedrooms were single occupancy which people could personalise to suit their individual taste.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager had responsibility for three other homes owned by Gloucestershire Group Homes Ltd.
People were receiving care that was responsive and effective. Care plans were in place that described how the person would like to be supported. This included how the person’s Asperger’s syndrome impacted on their day to day live. The care plans were tailored to the person and provided staff with information to support the person effectively. People had been consulted about their care needs and their views sought about the service. For one person this was done informally to avoid increased anxieties.
People were supported to make decisions and take proportionate risks. Systems were in place to ensure that complaints and any concerns in respect of abuse were responded to. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management, checks on the environment and safe recruitment processes. People’s medicines were managed safely. The over counter medicines people could take would benefit from a review. Health and social care professionals were involved in the care of the people where required.
People were supported to access the community either with staff support or independently. There was usually one member of staff working in Churchill Road. There were day care staff who complimented the residential staff, supporting people to take part in activities of their choice. There was a day centre that people could access if they wanted during the day and two evenings a week.
The staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and caring in their approach. Staff felt supported by the management team. Staff received training relevant to their needs. There was a training plan in place which was being monitored by the senior management team. Staff were receiving regular one to one meetings with their line manager.
Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of the service which included visits from the provider and the registered manager. Although these were not always recorded. Senior management meetings were held weekly. There was a lack of records of these meetings showing areas of improvement or risks. People’s views were sought through surveys. The provider told us these had not been sent for 2016 as they were reviewing the format to ensure it was appropriate.
We have made a recommendation about the recording of information.
One of the two people living at the home were out for the day when we arrived, the other person did not want to speak with us about their experiences. We therefore relied on discussions with staff, a review of the records relating to the care, welfare and safety of the people living at the home and we also undertook a tour of the premises.
People's care needs were assessed and care plans showed that they were to be
supported in individualised ways to meet their needs and preferences. Their health and medication needs were met as well as their social needs. Individuals' privacy, dignity and independence were respected, with both people having various opportunities to be part of their local community.
The two people living at 65 Churchill road, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.
We found there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs and that the staff were knowledgeable and well supported by the provider.
Records were detailed, well written and reflected the care and support for the people living at the home. Records had been reviewed and updated when required.
We observed interactions between staff and one of the people living at the home and saw that staff were respectful, patient and kind in their approach.
We saw that staff followed good practices when they were supporting people
with their medicines.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
People had been given information on how to raise concerns. Comments and complaints people made would be responded to appropriately. We asked one person living at the home if they were ok, they told us 'I am alright, I have no problems'.
We observed staff treating people with sensitivity and respect. Staff listened and responded to people supporting them to make decisions and choices about their lifestyles.
Relatives commented, "the carers are first class" and "they take into account the individual problems of each client".
A person showed us around their home. They were happy and animated about their rooms and the support they received from staff.