Churchfield Court

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their choices in terms of how they spent their days. A number of people we spoke with expressed concerns about the lack of opportunities offered about how they spent their time. One person told us, “I’m just sat here all day with nothing to do. It’s mind-bending. It’s just not good sat here all day with nothing to do. “ Another person commented, “They don’t take you out at all. There’s not a lot to do. I like classical music, it would be nice to hear some. I want to feel alive, instead I’m just sitting in a chair getting old.” We shared this feedback with the registered manager and following the inspection they told us they would review the activity and engagement schedules to ensure people have meaningful opportunities for interaction throughout the day.

We saw other aspects of people’s care was designed around their individual needs and preferences and staff did work with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

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. The deputy manager shared with us how the staff team worked with health care professionals to ensure they met people’s needs. Records we reviewed supported this. The staff team had made referrals to relevant healthcare agencies to ask them to review people’s changing needs or to support the staff team in managing a person’s health or presentation. We saw information about people’s needs was shared with visiting professionals so they were fully informed when they met with people. This supported the smooth delivery of people’s care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were given information in a way they could best understand. We observed staff explaining people’s care to them and giving a level of information appropriate to the person’s needs. Staff were able to describe to us how they supported people’s communicate needs and shared examples with us of how they used both verbal and non-verbal communication to assist people’s understanding of the care that was being provided. People’s communication needs were detailed in their care plans to support this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People we spoke with felt able to raise questions or concerns about their care. They told us they were comfortable speaking with either the deputy manager or registered manager and had confidence they would be taken seriously. One person commented, “[Name of registered manager] is a good fella. He has told me if there’s any problems I have to tell him. I would if I had a problem but I haven’t.” Some people told us they had complained about the menu options and although some people told us they were dissatisfied with the food the management team had listened to people and were reviewing the menu in response to people’s feedback.

The provider had an established system in place for the management of complaints. Records reflected people’s concerns were taken seriously and where relevant, responses had been provided by the registered manager.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us staff supported them to access services which were appropriate for their needs. People’s health needs were supported by weekly ward rounds from their GP. The community nursing team visited the home daily to ensure people’s care and treatment needs were met. Where people’s needs changed staff sought to make referrals without delay to ensure people received care that met their needs.

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.

Staff had received training in the Equality Act and some of the staff team had also completed training in diversity and inclusion. Staff were confident to advocate for people where appropriate. They were considerate of how people’s protected characteristics, such as cultural or religious needs could impact on the care they provided, and respected this.

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. The management team told us they had systems in place to support people in planning for their future care. Care plans were in place which staff told us they used to ensure they provided end of life care in accordance with people’s needs and preferences. The staff team worked in partnership with specialist professionals to ensure people’s experience of care at the end of their lives was dignified.