- Care home
Church View Nursing Home
Assessment report published 27 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Church View Nursing Home is a care home for 43 people. At the time of this assessment there were 35 people living in the home.
This service is a nursing home which provides support to adults with dementia, mental health conditions and physical disabilities.
We carried out this assessment on 28 and 29 September 2026. This 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. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People received safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care from a staff team with the skills, knowledge and experience to meet their needs. There were enough staff deployed to support people safely, and robust safeguarding, risk management and medicines systems helped protect people from harm. The provider maintained a safe environment through effective health and safety processes, regular servicing of equipment and oversight from a dedicated maintenance team.
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 that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People's needs were thoroughly assessed before moving into the service and were regularly reviewed to ensure information remained accurate and reflected any changes in their circumstances. Care plans and risk assessments provided staff with clear, person-centred and evidence-based guidance. For example, information was available for people living with specific health conditions such as diabetes, those requiring catheter care, and those using oxygen therapy. The provider was responsive to feedback and acted promptly when minor improvements were identified.
Staff worked proactively with people and healthcare professionals to monitor outcomes and support positive wellbeing, particularly in relation to hydration, nutrition and the prevention and management of pressure wounds. People were encouraged to make choices about their care and support, and staff consistently sought consent and demonstrated a good understanding of people's rights.
People lived in a comfortable and personalised environment. Bedrooms reflected people's individual preferences and interests, helping to promote a sense of belonging and independence. There were effective opportunities for people, relatives and staff to share their views through meetings and feedback processes. People consistently described the service as having an open, inclusive and communicative culture.
The service was able to demonstrate an outstanding caring culture. People, relatives, staff and professionals provided several positive examples of staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People's independence, choice and control were actively promoted, and staff took the time to understand each person as an individual. Leaders fostered a positive team culture through initiatives such as a senior carer development programme and opportunities for staff to recognise and share examples of good practice, helping to support continuous learning and improvement.
Governance and oversight arrangements were effective in monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Leaders regularly reviewed performance and acted on findings to drive improvement. The service maintained strong links with healthcare professionals and community services, and coordinating support to ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were met. Overall, leaders were visible, approachable and committed to providing high-quality, person-centred care.
People's experience of this service
We gathered feedback from people and relatives during our site visits and obtained additional feedback from relatives by telephone. We also observed interactions between people and staff and how care and support was being delivered throughout the inspection.
People consistently told us they felt safe living at the service. Relatives also expressed confidence that their family members were safe and well supported. People and relatives described staff as administering medicines safely and effectively. Positive feedback was also provided about the cleanliness of the home.
Feedback regarding staffing levels was generally positive. Most people felt there were enough staff available to meet their needs, although some commented there were occasions when the service was busier and support could take slightly longer. However, people did not feel this had a negative impact on their care. Comments from relatives included, “There are plenty of staff around,” and “We visit around 9.30am and [Person] has already had their breakfast and medicines. Staff come in and out every hour to reposition them in bed. There is always someone around to help them.” During our visits, we observed enough care staff, nurses and housekeeping staff throughout the home. Staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs and regularly took time to engage people in friendly conversation.
All relatives told us they were able to visit whenever they wished. Comments included, “I visit twice a day,” and “I can visit any time.” One person said, “I am happy here, my spouse can visit whenever they like.”
People and relatives consistently described staff and leaders as kind, caring and compassionate. They told us staff worked hard to ensure people received high-quality care and support. One relative said, “[Person] has exceptional care,” while another commented, “They smile and laugh with the residents and interact with them. They are friendly and kind.”
Relatives also described feeling welcomed and valued by the service. One relative told us, “They are very caring. I do a quiz for the residents every week and try to get the residents talking to each other. The service welcomes relatives to volunteer, help in the home and get involved.”
Most people told us there were opportunities to participate in activities, either in communal areas or through one-to-one sessions in their rooms. Some people and relatives explained that individuals sometimes chose not to attend organised activities and preferred to remain in their rooms or observe activities without actively participating. One person told us, “I make friends here. I help a person upstairs with activities.” A relative said, “Although [Person] cannot now go down into the lounge for activities, staff visit them regularly. They know more about their life than I do and talk to them about their past experiences. They involve [Person] in activities by bringing things to them, such as colouring and knitting.”
People felt staff respected and promoted their independence wherever possible. One person told us, “They help me get up and walk,” while another said, “I am independent, I go outside whenever I want.” Relatives of people with more complex health needs felt staff understood and managed risks effectively, including those associated with pressure damage and eating and drinking difficulties.
People and relatives told us the service supported access to healthcare and other professional services when required. One person said, “I use the hairdresser every week, chiropody every six weeks and they have come to test my eyes at the service. I also go into town to get my diabetes checked.”
We received mixed feedback about the food provided. Some people described the meals as “very good”, while others felt they were “okay”. People told us they received good portion sizes, a choice of meals and regular access to drinks throughout the day. During the inspection, we observed a relative compliment the chef on the lunchtime meal. We also saw people being provided with modified and softer food options where required. Relatives described staff as patient and supportive when assisting people who required help with eating and drinking.
People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff and leaders and were confident any issues would be addressed. Comments included, “I can speak to staff about any problems, the manager has been very good,” and “They call me to update me about anything important that happens.”
Positive feedback was also received about the registered manager. Comments included, “The registered manager is great, always responsive,” and “Very approachable and friendly. If I have any concerns, I can discuss them with them.”
Overall, people and relatives spoke positively about their experiences of care and support. Whilst some people felt certain areas of the home would benefit from redecoration, which we also observed, the provider told us a refurbishment plan was in place to address these areas.