You are here

Archived: Churchfields Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2016

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Churchfields on 3 March 2015. After that inspection we received information that raised concerns from the local safeguarding team in relation to a number of areas following a safeguarding investigation. As result of this we undertook a focussed inspection. This report only covers the areas focussed on during this inspection. You can read the report from out last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Churchfields on our website at

This focused inspection took place on 27 January 2016. Churchfields is run and managed by Methodist Homes. The service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 70 people. On the day of our inspection 50 people were using the service. The service is provided across two buildings. People requiring nursing care were accommodated in one building over two floors with a passenger lift connecting the two floors. People requiring residential care were accommodated in a separate building over three floors with a lift connecting all floors.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the types of abuse people who lived in the home may be exposed to and they understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people in their care.

Although individual risks to people were assessed and recorded in their care plans the provider could not demonstrate people were fully protected from the use of faulty equipment as processes for monitoring cleaning and checking of equipment in use were not robust. People were not always protected from preventable risks as the provider did not always respond to safeguarding incidents in a timely way. Staff recruitment was safe and the distribution of appropriately trained staff to each area was appropriate.

Although staff had received training to develop their knowledge and skills in relation to their job role

there was a lack of assessment of their competency to check their learning.

People were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA]. Individual mental capacity assessments and appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding [DoLS] applications had been made.

People received personalised care from staff who knew their needs. People felt they could report any concerns to the management team and felt they would be taken seriously.

People could not be assured that internal company processes were fully effective as the provider’s response to a serious incident had been slow. In addition to this, feedback to staff about the outcome of this incident and any changes required was not robust. This resulted in lessons learned being slow and communication between the different units not always being effective.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2016

The service was not always safe.

People were not fully protected from the risk of using equipment that had been maintained appropriately as the processes for managing the maintenance of equipment were not robust.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs and staff were able to respond to people�s needs in a timely manner.

The provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations of abuse and had individual risk assessments in place.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2016

The service was not always effective.

People could not be assured that they were supported by staff who had been assessed as competent in their job role and supported in their personal development.

Procedures were in place to protect people who lacked capacity to make decisions.



Updated 9 March 2016



Updated 9 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People residing at the home, or those acting on their behalf, were involved in the planning of their care when able and staff had the necessary information to promote people�s well-being.

People were supported to make complaints and concerns to the management team.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 March 2016

The service was not always well led.

The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not always robust.

People felt the management team were approachable and their opinions were taken into consideration.