The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Pilgrims View

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Roberts Road, Snodland, Kent, ME6 5HL (01634) 241906

Provided and run by:
Avante Care and Support Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

Pilgrims View is a care home. There were 34 people using the service at the time of the inspection.


Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for older people and people living with dementia.


Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 22 July 2026. The service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard.

The service was due to close approximately 8 weeks after our site visit. People had planned, with staff and relatives, to move to a new care home which would offer more modern facilities, including ensuite rooms. The provider had continued to invest in the current building. The building and equipment were maintained and met people’s needs. Staff told us faulty equipment had been replaced promptly to support them to provide safe care.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions. They had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff supported people to make informed decisions and offered them choices in ways which suited them. For example, staff showed people the meal options before they decided what they wanted to eat.

Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns they had. They were assured the registered manager, and the provider would act on any concerns. The registered manager had worked with the local authority safeguarding team to investigate any concerns and learn lessons.

Staff understood potential risks to people and planned their care with them to keep them safe. For example, staff knew what may cause people to become anxious or upset and how to reassure them. Other risks, such as the risk of falling had been assessed and care had been planned to keep people as safe as possible, such as alert mats to tell staff when people were moving around without support.

Medicines were managed safely. Effective processes were in operation to order, store, administer and dispose of people’s medicines.

People’s needs were assessed with them before they began to use the service. This was so leaders could be assured staff had the skills to meet people’s needs and understood their preferences. Staff used recognised assessment tools to keep people’s needs under review and ensure effective information sharing with health care professionals.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We observed staff had the skills to provide people’s care, including meeting their dementia needs. Staff explained to us how they distracted people when they were anxious and this helped them remain calm. Staff worked together as a team.

Systems were in operation to learn from accidents and incidents. An analysis was completed to look for patterns and trends and take appropriate action to prevent issues occurring again. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals was requested regularly. The feedback received had been positive.

The registered manager worked with local colleges to offer work placements to social care students, supporting them to get on the job experience to support their learning.

Regular checks were completed on all areas of the service. Action was planned to address any shortfalls found and checked to ensure actions were complete and effective. A continuous improvement plan was in place, and this had led to the development of a new purpose built service.
 

21 November 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 21 November 2017, and was an unannounced inspection.

The service provides care and support for up to 44 older people who do not have nursing needs, but some of whom are living with mild to moderate dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people using the service. Two of these people were cared for in bed. The accommodation was situated over four units; each had its own dining room and lounge areas and small kitchenette.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 30 September 2015, the service was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring and Well Led domains with an overall Good rating. However, the Responsive domain Required Improvement. We recommended to the provider to seek advice and guidance from a reputable source and to carry out research on published guidance about the benefits of and types of activities recommended for people living with dementia.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

The service has a registered manager. The registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection as they were on holiday. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 provided good leadership. They checked staff were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support.

There were activities located around the home for people to engage with independently and each dining room table was set up for people to be engaged in different activity. All staff took the time to sit and engage with people and take an interest in what people were doing. Staff made time for people.

Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the home could be improved. This was used to make changes and improvements that people wanted. Records were consistent and robust.

People continued to be safe at Pilgrims View. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for. There were systems in place to support staff and people to stay safe.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The registered manager continued to have appropriate arrangements in place to check the suitability and fitness of new staff.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly.

Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff showed they were caring and they treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

The registered manager ensured the complaints procedure was made available in an accessible format if people wished to make a complaint. Regular checks and reviews of the home continued to be made to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support.

30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 30 September 2015 and was unannounced.

The service provides care and support for up to 44 older people who do not have nursing needs, but some of whom are living with mild to moderate dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service. One of these people was cared for in bed. The accommodation was situated over four units; each had its own dining room and lounge areas and small kitchenette.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Restrictions imposed on people were only considered after their ability to make individual decisions had been assessed as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The registered manager understood when an application should be made. Decisions people made about their care or medical treatment were dealt with lawfully and fully recorded.

During our inspection people were not engaged in any planned activities.

We have made a recommendation about this.

People were kept safe by staff who understood their responsibilities to protect people living with dementia. Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse and showed a good understanding of what their responsibilities were in preventing abuse. The management team had access to and understood the safeguarding policies of the local authority.

Plans were in place to ensure that people who may not understand what to do in emergency situations would be supported by a member of staff. Fire drills and evacuations were practiced.

The provider’s policies and management plans were implemented by staff to protect people from harm. The registered manager and care staff used their experience and knowledge of caring for people with dementia effectively. Staff assessed people as individuals so that they understood how they planned people’s care to maintain their safety, health and wellbeing. Risks were assessed within the service, both to individual people and for the wider risk from the environment. Staff understood the steps to be taken to minimise risk when they were identified.

There were policies and procedures in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff received in depth training to administer medicines safely and the registered manager consistently checked staff continued to follow best practice.

People had access to GPs and their health and wellbeing was supported by prompt referrals and access to medical care if they became unwell. Good quality records were kept to assist people to monitor and maintain their health. Staff had been trained to assist people to manage the daily health challenges they faced from conditions such as diabetes.

Staff upheld people’s right to choose who was involved in their care and people’s right to do things for themselves was respected. We observed people being consulted about their care and staff being flexible to request made by people. Staff knew people well and people had been asked about who they were and about their life experiences. People could involve relatives or others who were important to them when they chose the care they wanted. This helped staff deliver care to people as individuals.

Staff understood the challenges people faced and supported people to maintain their health by ensuring people had enough to eat and drink. Pictures of healthy food were available to people to assist them in making choices about what they ate. Dietary support had been provided through healthy eating menus and individuals who needed it had eating and drinking plans put in place by dieticians.

We observed and people described a service that was welcoming and friendly. Staff provided friendly compassionate care and support. People were encouraged to get involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

The registered manager involved people in planning their care by assessing their needs when they first moved in and then by asking people if they were happy with the care they received.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked by the registered manager to see what steps could be taken to prevent these happening again. Staff were trained about the safe management of people with behaviours that may harm themselves or others.

Managers ensured that they had planned for foreseeable emergencies, so that should they happen people’s care needs would continue to be met. The premises and equipment in the service were well maintained to promote safety.

Recruitment policies were in place. Safe recruitment practices had been followed before staff started working at the service. The registered manager recruited staff with relevant experience and the right attitude to work well with people who had dementia. New staff and existing staff were given extensive induction and on-going training which included information specific to dementia care.

Staff received supervisions and training to assist them to deliver a good quality service and to further develop their skills. Staffing levels were kept under constant review as people’s needs changed. The registered manager ensured that they employed enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

The registered manager produced information which was displayed throughout the service about how to complain. This included people being asked frequently if they were unhappy about anything in the service. If people complained they were listened to and the registered manager made changes or suggested solutions that people were happy with. The registered manager reviewed how they responded to complaints to improve the system.

The registered manager and the deputy manager had many years of experience between them in managing older people’s services. Staff told us that since the registered manager and deputy manager had been in post there had been an improvement in effectiveness and leader ship.

Staff and the management team had demonstrated a desire to deliver a good quality service to people by constantly listening and improving how the service was delivered. People and staff felt that the service was well led. They told us that managers were approachable and listened to their views. The registered manager and other senior managers provided good leadership.

The provider and registered manager developed business plans to improve people’s experiences of the care.

3 July 2014

During a routine inspection

During this inspection, the inspector focused on answering five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The staff that we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. During our inspection we saw that staff delivered the care outlined in people's care plans. For example we observed that staff ensured people were safe from falls because they encouraged people to use their walking aids.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us. Staff had access to support and advice at all times from a senior member of staff.

The registered manager ensured that staff underwent checks before starting work at the home. For example they checked a person's character by carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS). This was formally known as a criminal records check.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse and they understood their responsibilities to protect vulnerable people.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that people's rights were protected because the manager understood how to support people to make decisions in their best interest.

There were systems in place for making regular checks on the safety of the premises and for ensuring that the staff had the required skills and knowledge to care for people in a safe way.

Is the service effective?

People had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. We saw that people had been fully involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan. People's care plans were reviewed regularly to check they were still effective. During our inspection we saw staff delivering the care outlined in people's plans. People who used the service talked positively about the care they had received. One person said 'I am aware of my care plan and staff treat me with respect'. Staff were able to explain to us about how they reviewed people's care plans. They told us that they keep people's care plans under review. One said 'We go through people's care plans with them'. We found that all of the care plan files we looked at had been reviewed recently by the person's key worker. The records showed that the reviews had included the person who used the service.

Is the service caring?

We found that people were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff that supported them. We observed that people had a positive relationship with staff. Staff took time to chat with people about day to day matters. People we talked with were positive about their experiences of the service. During our inspection we talked with four people who used the service or their relatives. All of the people we talked with were happy with the care they had received. People told us that the staff were caring. One person said 'The staff are friendly and caring.' Another person said 'I am very happy with the care here, in my experience this is as good as it gets'. A relative said 'The staff are very caring they meet X's needs very well.' Another relative said 'The staff are very friendly, they are very good'.

Is the service responsive?

The service reviewed people's care plans regularly. There was a nominated person in charge of the service with the required training and authority to manage how the service was delivered. The registered manager or their deputies were available via telephone for further advice when needed.

We found that the manager asked people about what they experienced from the care and treatment they had received. The manager had consulted people who used the service, listened to their comments and acted on them.

Is the service well-led?

The provider continually monitored areas of risk in the service and made regular checks on quality. There was evidence that the provider learnt from incidents that occurred to prevent them from occurring again.

We noted that at the time of our inspection that there was no registered manager for the service. However, the manager told us that they were applying for registration. We saw that the provider was auditing this process to ensure that they supported the manager's registration application.

The manager ensured that daily checks of the quality and safety of the service were carried out. Regular reviews of people's care plans took place which ensured their needs were being met.

Staff were trained, appraised and supervised to ensure they could care for people effectively.

1 August 2013

During a routine inspection

The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. All the interactions we saw between staff, management and people who lived in the home were positive. We spoke with people who lived in the home. They told us were happy with the way they were cared for. They said, 'They can't do too much for you but they don't push you into anything'. 'They really help me when I need it'. 'I like the girls they are very good'.

Staff understood the importance about asking people for their consent before any care and treatment was given.

People were provided with appropriate care and support that met their needs and promoted their wellbeing.

People were generally supported appropriately with regards to their medication needs.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place to safeguard the people who lived in the home. Staff were given the training and support they needed to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

Overall we found that Pilgrims View had achieved compliance but have made some comments that the provider may find useful to note.

24 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection of this service on 24 September 2012. At that visit we found that there were improvements that needed to be made. The provider had sent us an action plan to tell us what they were going to do to achieve compliance. During this visit we found that improvements had been made. We have highlighted some areas within the report that the provider may find it useful to note. People who lived at the home were experiencing dementia and were not always able to tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service.

We found that staffing levels had increased, which meant that there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home.

Staff knew about peoples individual likes, dislikes and preferences and we observed positive interactions between staff and the people who lived in the home.

We saw that care plans and risk assessments contained more information and gave clearer guidance to staff. Risk assessments did not always give staff enough information on how to support the person to reduce any potential risks.

The quality monitoring of the service and the systems in place had been developed so that ongoing improvements could be made.

Not all records were maintained appropriately so that the delivery of care could be monitored and reviewed.

24 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences. We observed how people interacted with care staff. We found evidence that people's safety and care and welfare needs were not always met. The provider had already identified shortfalls in the quality of the service and had begun to implement a programme of improvement.

13 January 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with some of the people who lived in the home but were unable to speak to many people due to their complex dementia needs. We had the opportunity to speak to relatives who were visiting their loved ones and also three visiting healthcare professionals. We observed how people were supported.

People we spoke with said that they were happy in the home. One person said about the home "It is top hole" and "I am very happy here". Another person told us "I am happy with the support I get" and "The girls are very helpful".

Relatives who were visiting the home told us that they were happy with the care and support provided. They said that they thought the care staff were "Very supportive" and that "The girls are kind and they are smiley".

Relatives told us that they were kept informed of changes or if their family member was unwell. They said that they could visit when they wanted and were always made welcome. One visitor said "They look after my relative very well".

Relatives did mention that they thought there was a lack of activities and one person said "There isn't an awful lot of stimulation happening".

Visiting health and social care professionals told us that they felt the home supported people well. They did tell us that sometimes when changes to the support were needed, this did not always happen in a timely manner.