Churchill House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The manager and staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were involved in their care and support planning, and this was adaptable to people’s individual wishes and choices. Care plans contained important information such as if the person had any interests, hobbies and individual histories. People’s care plans also contained how the person wanted to have their care needs met along with their individual likes and dislikes. Staff gave people choice and encouraged people to make decisions about their care and support.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People made daily choices in what activities they undertook. This included people going shopping, cycling, walking and attending health appointments.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, people’s care plans contained information in alternative formats such as large print with pictorial images. This supported people so they could make decisions about their care and support and so the service was able to explore people’s wishes and support them in making decisions.

The manager and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People’s views were sought through monthly care plan reviews. The manager and staff were available to support people should they wish to discuss any concerns. People’s families we spoke with although happy with the service did raise with us some improvements where the service needed to communicate with them more. We shared this feedback with the manager so they could review this. No complaints had been raised about the service at the time of our inspection. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and support and additional information could be provided to people if needed. People could access advocacy services as well if they needed to.

The manager and staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported by staff who knew people well and how to support people with their individual needs such as religion. People’s care plans contained important information such as if the person held a religion, health action plans and if they attended a place of worship. Families we spoke with all felt care people received was respectful.

The management of the service and staff actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. We observed positive interactions where staff gave people choice about their care and daily routine.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care and support plans confirmed if this had been discussed with people including any comments raised by the person. No one at the time of the inspection was receiving end of life support.