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

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 61 (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 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.

Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable on how people wished to be supported and could tell us information about people’s likes and dislikes and things of importance to assist them with person-centred care. One staff member told us, “We always try to make sure [person] can do what they want to do.”

The service ensured people had access to the necessary reasonable adjustments during their stays, meaning they could receive the most appropriate care for them. For example, people were allocated bedrooms based on their individual needs.

Although staff were observed to deliver person-centred care and treatment, our review of care records found that care plans did not always provide staff with sufficient guidance to deliver person-centred care tailored to people's individual preferences and needs. Also, relative feedback was mixed on staff knowledge of how to support people using the service. One relative told us, “Staff need to get to know [person].” Another told us they would, “Feel more comfortable if it was staff who knows [person] well.”

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.

Staff received training in learning disability awareness training and had a good understanding of the diverse needs of this service user group.

The rota evidenced a small, consistent staff team and absences were covered by the permanent staff team, or regular bank staff who knew people well.

Staff told us they used a communication book to handover any concerns when people would spend the day at the day centre.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us they considered communication needs to aid involvement of people in their care. For example, staff told us they used a Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) for those who required different communication aids. One staff member commented, “We do an assessment for people on admission to see how we can support them.” Staff had access to a translator service and could provide example of using this service to communicate with both the person using the service and their relatives. However, we did not see evidence of this during our assessment when engaging with those who could not verbally communicate.

The provider did not always enable people to share feedback regarding their care, treatment and support.

Staff told us they use a parent and carer form to get feedback on the service. We saw a newsletter that is sent out to people and relatives twice a year. This provided updates to people on staffing, activities and upcoming events. We observed staff supported people at their own pace and recognised where people needed more time to process information to understand and express their views.

The provider had systems in place to gather people’s feedback. However, complaints information was not always accurate. We reviewed the complaints log for 2025, and this had no documented complaints. However, relatives had told us that they had raised concerns with the service. For example, one relative told us they had raised concerns with the service that physical health deterioration was not being appropriately escalated. However, this was not documented on the complaints log, we could therefore not be assured they had been sufficiently addressed.

Relatives told us they were involved in care planning. One relative told us the service, “Have reviews annually, face to face, and if anything changed it is updated.” However, relatives were not always confident that concerns were shared with them appropriately. For example, one relative told us that the person using the service had returned home following a visit with explained bruising, however, staff were unable to inform relatives how these bruises had occurred. The relative commented, “I rang the respite and day care, no one knew. I rang safeguarding, no one still let me know. Church View want body maps before [person] goes in, I do it but they don’t send one back.” We asked the service to look into this and found that a safeguarding referral had been raised with the local authority and actions were taken to embed learning into practice.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Relatives told us they could not always access care and said they had experienced cancellations of planned respite due to staffing issues. One relative told us, “Can’t plan ahead, can only have so much time, [the service] have cancelled respite because they are short staffed.” Another commented, “Have to give dates a year in advance, have lost money because of cancellations.”Following the inspection, the provider clarified that whilst some planned respite stays had been cancelled due to operational pressures, cancelled stays were rescheduled where possible and commissioned respite allocations continued to be met.

The service had access to a minibus which supported people in accessing the community for off-site activities. We observed one person being supported in accessing this during our visit. One staff member commented, “He loves going on the minibus, especially when the Christmas lights are out.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience of outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider had a protocol in place for physical health deterioration which gave guidance for staff in seeking the appropriate medical intervention, however there was a lack of clarity for relatives on this process. Relatives told us they would receive telephone calls from the service to take the person home instead of seeking the appropriate medical intervention, so periods of respite were cut short. One relative commented, “[Relatives] are terrified when [person] into respite that they will get calls.” The relative added, “If there is the slightest thing, they will call me now.”

Care plans included information around people’s identity and things that were important to them. Care plans detailed reasonable adjustments needed to ensure people’s mobility and communication needs were met. However, people’s care was not always tailored to their individual needs. For example, we engaged with 2 people who did not use verbal communication during this assessment, with an alternative method of communication they used. We found that they were not supported with communication tools to provide feedback, demonstrating that people’s care was not always tailored to support different methods of communication.

We reviewed a person’s care records and found they had been assessed as needing a new shower tray to meet their needs arising from their physical disability and this equipment was requested in October 2023. However, we did not see evidence that this equipment was in place, and this person was being supported to access the shower. The relative of this individual told us, “Manager says they need three [staff] to shower [person]… manager said [person] has no showersat the weekend because of the tray and staff.” We asked the service to look into this and they confirmed that this person was supported to use the shower at least once during their stay, and they are working with occupational therapists and staff to support any concerns.

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.

Due to the nature of the service, there was no specific emphasis on planning for the future in care plans. However, care plans included information on how to support people in an emergency. Staff were also taking steps to support people with their behaviour, including promoting independence.