Churchill House

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing. Some improvements were needed to 1 person’s care plan and their communication needs.

For example, most people’s care plans contained information such as support they needed with their individual communication needs. This included if a referral had been made to speech and language, and the outcome of this. People’s care plans included if the person wore glasses or a hearing aid. Although improvements were needed to 1 person’s care plan as it contained limited information on how staff were to support them with their communication needs including the use of Makaton. Some staff, including agency staff needed fresher training in Makaton to ensure they could fully support people who used this communication method. Makaton is a type of communication used within learning disability services.

Care plans were person centred and contained important information about the person. This included what the person liked to do, who was important to them and how they liked to be supported, including their likes and dislikes. People had monthly care plan reviews and care plans were reviewed 6 monthly or before if needed. The manager confirmed they had requested a review from people’s funding authority due to some of the changes identified as part of this inspection.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported by staff who they knew well. Staff supported people to make choices about how they wanted their care and support provided. Care plans contained risk assessments such as if the person had any nutrition and hydration needs or any risks associated with this, along with any allergies. Staff encouraged healthy eating options and people were encouraged to be independent with preparing meals and hot drinks when they could do this themselves.

The provider worked well 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.

People were supported by a staff team that worked in partnership with them and who made referrals when needed to health and social care professionals. Care plans contained important information such as if the person had a health and social care professional involved with their care and how staff could contact them. Referrals were made when required and information was within people’s individual care plans including any outcomes from these referrals.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to attend yearly health reviews, GP appointments and health screening appointments when needed. Although a relative raised with us mixed feedback about the person who had not attended 2 different appointments. We raised this with the manager so they could review this with staff and the person. People were encouraged and supported to attend the local gym, go swimming, cycling and walking. People also attended volunteer groups, gardening and social activities. Staff supported people to maximise their potential by knowing people well and supporting them in things they enjoyed doing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People had monthly care plan reviews. These were an opportunity for people to discuss their care, and support needs along with any changes or aspirations they might have or wish to make about their care and support. People when asked if they were happy with their care, confirmed, they were. Relatives also confirmed the support provided to people was good although some improvements could be made to communication. A relative told us, “The care and support is really good although it could be better with a response from staff”. We shared this feedback with the manager and the provider’s quality team so they could review what actions were required.

People were supported by staff who respected their choice, so they received care and support that was personal to them. People were supported by staff to make decisions about their care and support. This was through pictorial, verbal and if needed having an advocate to support them make decisions. Although where people lacked capacity to make decisions about certain aspects of their care and support, improvements were needed to ensure best interest decisions had been made along with any authorisation applications. More information can be found within the quality statement of safeguarding.