You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

The inspection took place on 11 December 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

Church View was last inspected by CQC on 1 and 5 October 2015 and was rated ‘Good’ overall and in all areas. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall and in all areas.

Church View is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Church View provides personal care for up to 42 older people and people living with dementia type illnesses. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living at the home. Church View is located in a small village called Murton in County Durham. Situated to local shops and community facilities.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 atmosphere of the service was homely, warm and welcoming. People who used the service were relaxed in their own home environment.

People were supported to have choice and control from being supported by person centred approaches. Person centred care is when the person is central to their support and their preferences are respected.

People were always respected by staff and treated with kindness. We saw staff being respectful and considerate.

People’s support plans were person centred. They included details of peoples care needs and a ‘one page profile’ that described their individual support needs. These were regularly reviewed.

People were supported to make a ‘life book’ that detailed their background, interests and personal history.

People were supported to play an active role within their local community by making regular use of local resources including the local community centre, churches and regular partnership working with the local primary school.

Support plans contained risk assessments that were individualised. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. This supported people do the things they wanted to live their lives fully.

The support plans we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health support professionals where necessary, for example; the falls team or community nurse.

Staff understood safeguarding issues and procedures were in place to minimise the risk of abuse occurring. Where concerns had been raised we saw they had been referred to the relevant safeguarding department for investigation. Robust recruitment processes were in place.

Staff understood the importance of equality and human rights and protecting peoples’ rights.

Information was provided in accessible formats and access to advocacy services was available.

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 place supported this practice.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care, staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to make decisions in the person’s best interest. For those people that did not always have capacity, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed for them. Records of best interest decisions showed involvement from people’s family and staff.

We saw people were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

People were supported to maintain their independence on a daily basis.

Support staff told us they felt supported to carry out their

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 January 2018

This service remains Good.