• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Churchill House Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

30 Denmark Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 1SE (01392) 686490

Provided and run by:
Guinness Care and Support Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 15 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15 March 2016 and was unannounced. It was carried out by one social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at the information we had received from the service including statutory notifications (issues providers are legally required to notify us about) or other enquiries from and about the provider.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the service before the inspection visit.

During our inspection we spoke with the manager, seven people living in the home, one visitor and three staff. After the inspection we contacted six health and social care professionals and received responses from two. We looked at the care records of three people living in the home.

We also looked at records relevant to the running of the service. This included staff recruitment files, training records, medication records, and quality monitoring procedures.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 15 April 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 March 2016. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 11 older people. On the day of this inspection there were 11 people living there. The service was last inspected on 5 August 2014. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.

There was a recently appointed manager who was not yet registered. They had submitted an application to register a few days prior to this inspection. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Churchill House. Comments included “Yes, I feel safe. I could speak out if I had any concerns.” Staff had received training in all aspects of safeguarding people and they knew how to identify and report any concerns.

Safe procedures had been followed when recruiting new staff. Checks and references had been carried out before new staff began working with people. This meant they were confident new staff were suitable for the job they had applied for.

People held their own medicines in a secure locked cabinet in their room. Staff had received training in safe administration and we observed a member of staff following safe practice when administering medicines. People told us they were satisfied with the way their medicines were stored and administered.

There were enough staff to meet people’s support needs and to care for them safely. There had been a high turnover of staff in the last year and this had resulted in 10 new staff being recruited. People told us the staffing levels had improved following the recruitment of the new staff. For example, we asked one person if there were enough staff and they told us “Now, yes. Last year was not so good.”

Staff were kind, cheerful and understanding of each person’s individual needs. People were treated with dignity and respect. A person who lived in the home said “The staff are all very, very kind. They are all marvellous.” A visitor told us “They are very kind here.”

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. DoLS applications had been submitted where relevant. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before carrying out care tasks. We observed staff seeking consent from people before carrying out any tasks for people.

People had been involved and consulted in drawing up and agreeing a plan of their support needs. Their care plans were comprehensive, well laid out and easy to read. The care plans explained each person’s daily routines and how they wanted staff to support them. The plans were regularly reviewed and updated. The care plans and daily notes provided evidence to show that people were supported to maintain good health.

Staff had received training, supervision and support to enable them to effectively support each person’s mental and physical health needs. New staff received thorough induction training before they began working with people. All staff received ongoing training on topics covering all aspects of their jobs. One member of staff told us they had received “very good training – Guinness have covered every corner.” Another member of staff said “Guinness training is excellent.”

The home was well maintained, clean, warm and comfortable. The lounge had been redecorated and refurbished in the previous year. Although the decoration of the home was generally good, some areas had not been redecorated for a number of years. A ‘Customer Champion’ who had recently visited the home reported that some areas of the home “Need a bit of TLC”.

People participated in a variety of social activities within the home and in the community. During our inspection we saw people going out shopping, for walks, or to meet with friends. An activities co-ordinator was employed for 10 hours a week.

The provider had a range of monitoring systems in place to ensure the home ran smoothly and to identify where improvements were needed. People were encouraged to speak out and raise concerns, complaints or suggestions in a variety of ways including questionnaires, resident’s meetings, and through visits to the home by customer champions and senior managers employed by the provider.