You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 11 December 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 1 and 5 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 and 5 October 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Church View (Murton) provides care and accommodation for up to 42 older people and people with a dementia type illness. On the day of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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.

Church View (Murton) was last inspected by CQC on 9 September 2013 and was compliant.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.

Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations.

People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff training was up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals, which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We discussed DoLS with the support manager and looked at records. We found the provider was following the requirements in the DoLS.

People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Church View (Murton).

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Church View (Murton) and care plans were written in a person centred way.

We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated.

The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.

Inspection carried out on 9 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to the relatives of three people, who told us that in most aspects they were happy with the care provided within the home. However all three told us that they had recently become dissatisfied with the level of activity and social stimulation provided within the dementia unit. The deputy manager told us about a planned project on meeting the social needs of people with dementia, which would improve the experiences of people who used the service in relation to this.

We found before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Overall, care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found people’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

The provider had effective recruitment and selection processes in place for staff.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 17 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a number of people who used the service within the home. One person said "I’m staying here. I like it. I’m not going home" and another told us "I’m happy all the time; even when I’m miserable!”

People said they were involved in their care, with their preferences being sought and taken into consideration. People we spoke with said they were very satisfied with the care they received. One person said, “They do the very best they can within their limitations”. Another said, “The staff are lovely; it’s like a family here”.

Everybody we spoke with told us they felt safe at Church View and with the care staff employed by the service. One person said "I would recommend here to anybody.”