Church View - Princess of Wales Community Hospital Also known as Church View

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people were not always feel well supported and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders showed kindness and compassion when interacting with people using the service. When people showed signs of distress staff responded immediately, listened and provided reassurance. Staff were aware of their positioning and sat or crouched down to speak with people at the level and at their pace. A person using the service told us it was nice being at there and it gave them and their family members a break.

We observed staff from an external transport organisation telling a person, ‘don’t play me up’ and ‘enough is enough’. The home staff who were also present did not respond to protect the person’s rights and dignity. Staff told us it was usual for the person to have difficulty in transitioning but there was no transition care plan in place. We raised this with senior leaders who confirmed actions to escalate concerns to protect the person from reoccurrence and to develop a transition care plan to promote consistency and continuity of care.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and supported them to engage in activities aligned with their interests. One person told us, “I like going on the minibus.” We observed this person returning from an evening trip and they told us they had enjoyed the outing with staff and with another person who they considered a friend. The service told us they planned admissions around people’s compatibility and friendships as a priority.

However, 1 relative told us, “Prefer [person] to have all female staff and got told ‘staff is staff,’” which demonstrates the service may not always be meeting people’s individual expectations. A male staff member told us on occasion they supported female service users with personal care and daily care records also indicated this, which was against the service policy. Senior staff members told us people received gender specific support, and the service tried to make sure there is at least one female on shift to support females.

People and their relatives did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. We observed that people had meaningful engagement or activities available to them to meet their needs. We observed one person being supported to engage in activities outside of the service as this was their preference for the day. Although we observed personalised activity during our visit, relative feedback suggested people may not be sufficiently stimulated.

We received mixed feedback from relatives on the activities available to people. One relative told us, “[person] has not done many, they have equipment in the garden and will take [person] out for the day, but it comes down to individual care needs.” Another added, “There is not much stimulation.”

We identified concerns with Mental Capacity Assessments and found that staff were not always working within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act, we are therefore not assured that people had choice and control over their own care and treatment.

We observed staff promoting people’s choice and control by offering food based on religious preferences. A staff member told us “We promote independence, we have tried baking with [person] and we have started encouraging [person] to make their own sandwiches.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Observations throughout the assessment showed that people’s immediate needs were responded to without delay. Staff approached people in a kind and caring manner.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the management team. A staff member told us, “People want to work here which is really nice, people are happy to come to work.”