You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 January 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 1 December 2016. At the last inspection of this service in October 2015, we made recommendations for the service to make improvements in order to have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider was required to appoint a suitable manager to manage the service.

At this inspection, we found that the service had a registered manager in place. 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.

At this inspection we also found that staff had attended training in the MCA and DoLS. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made to the systems, to ensure that people received care and support in line with the MCA and DoLS.

Churchfields Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 32 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of this inspection, 28 people were using the service. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and there is a lift to assist people to access the upper floor. There are 31 single bedrooms and one double room, which two people can choose to share.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect the people in their care. They were knowledgeable about how to protect people from abuse and from other risks to their health and welfare.

Medicines were managed and handled safely. Arrangements were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were attentive, respectful, patient and interacted well with people. People told us that they were happy and felt well cared for. Risk assessments were in place about how to support people in a safe manner.

Staff undertook training and told us that they received supervision to support them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff training records showed they had attended a variety of training.

People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to health care services when it was needed. People received a nutritionally balanced diet to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved in to the home. Care plans were person centred and were regularly reviewed. Care plans were updated when people’s needs changed.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the service provided and people were asked for their feedback about the quality of service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was safe. People were protected as systems were in place to ensure their safety and well-being.

Staff had received training with regard to keeping people safe and knew the action to take if they suspected any abuse.

People were supported by staff who were trained to administer medicines appropriately.

The provider followed safe staff recruitment practices. Sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to ensure people were safe.

Regular checks took place to make sure that the equipment used was safe and fit for purpose.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was effective. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment had been assessed. Systems were in place to protect people who do not have capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People were supported to receive the healthcare that they needed.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was caring. Staff were kind, caring and treated people with dignity and respect.

People received care and support from staff who were aware of their needs, likes and preferences.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was responsive. Staff had information about people’s individual needs and how to meet these.

People were encouraged to be independent and make choices in order to have as much control as possible about what they did.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was well-led. There was a registered manager in post.

Quality assurance systems were used to identify shortfalls in the service and action was taken to make improvements.

People and their relatives were asked to give their views about the service through surveys. Staff felt supported and able to express their views.