Churchview Care Services (Taunton)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s outcomes were good.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a process in place to ensure people had their needs assessed before moving into the service. The assessments were completed with people and their relatives. Areas covered included, communication, capacity, health, nutrition, and meaningful engagement. The assessment formed the basis of people’s care plans.

People’s changing needs were assessed. For example, 1 person had a deterioration in their health, relevant professionals were involved, and regular multidisciplinary meeting were being held. However, it was not clear in the person’s records if 1 of the concerns had been escalated promptly to appropriate health professionals in between the meetings. Two professionals told us this was an area for improvement. Another professional told us the registered manager kept them up to date with any changes.

People’s care plans were reviewed and updated to reflect their current level of need. The registered manager identified where they were no longer able to meet people’s needs and took action to address this.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in line with current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and requirements and explained how they supported people in line with their speech and language therapy eating and drinking plans. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs.

People told us they were involved in choosing and cooking their meals. One person told us, “I eat what I want and do my own menus, I do my shopping at [name of supermarket] and the local shop, staff help me, I have a trolley on my wheelchair.”

Staff supported people to maintain links with those that are important to them. One person told us how they had purchased an iPad and they were supported to keep in touch with a relative who lived abroad. The registered manager told us the provider was developing an online portal for relatives to access relevant information relating to their loved ones.

The service worked across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff and the management team provided us with examples of how they worked with a range of health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.

We received some mixed feedback from health professionals. One professional told us the service worked well with them and kept them updated, another felt that this was an area that could be improved.

The service did not always effectively support people to live healthier lives and reduce their future needs for care and support.

One relative raised concerns relating to their loved one’s health. We found current information relating to a specific area of the person’s health was not shared promptly with the persons GP. Staff had however sought advice from another professional.

We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they had been escalating wider wellbeing concerns to professionals for over a year, and there were a range of health professionals involved in the person’s care.

Another relative told us, “[Name of person] certainly does see health professionals, they [staff] are good at that they, follow up on appointments and keep me updated”.

People told us they were supported to access the healthcare they required, including annual health checks. One person told us, “Yes I go to appointments with staff, I am happy with that, they make the appointments.” The provider had a system for recording people’s health appointments and any follow up actions or appointments required.

Staff told us they encouraged people to exercise and eat healthily. One person told us about their exercise routines and another person told us how they exercised by walking and going to a disco.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People were involved in setting goals for themselves. Staff told us about people’s short and long term goals, and how people had been involved in setting these.

The registered manager told us they were not able to provide the level of care required for 1 person due to their changing need. They had escalated this to a range of professionals to enable outcomes to be improved for the person. A health professional told us, “They appear to know their limitations of their ability to care and seeking support.”

Evidence of positive outcomes achieved was provided throughout the assessment. For example, 1 person had recently been supported to obtain a vehicle which they told us they liked, and they had also been on a holiday. Another person told us about a holiday they had just been on, which they enjoyed, and they were planning on attending a music concert to see their favourite music band.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us they were not restricted in any way and staff sought their consent before supporting them. One person told us, “Yes, they ask, they knock on my door to make sure I am awake and see how I am getting on.” We observed staff seeking consent from people before providing care and support.

People told us they were able to make day to day decisions about their lives. Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), and they understood the importance of seeking people’s consent. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place where required. Communication plans and decision-making profiles provided guidance for staff on how to support people to make decisions.