CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Church Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems and effective infection prevention measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had up-to-date assessments and care plans, relevant staff training and support with food, healthcare and communication. Staff supported people to make decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were supported to express their views and make choices about their care and daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's needs, interests, goals and communication styles. People could choose activities and had accessible information, including picture cards and communication passports.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and quality checks had improved and supported safer, person-centred care. The home had an open culture, although the process for analysing relatives' feedback was still being embedded.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 4 April 2022. They spoke with three people using the service, nine relatives and seven staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supported 16 autistic people and people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's communication needs, interests, health risks and personal goals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found good standards across the service at the time of the visit. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and was no longer in breach of the regulations previously identified.
Personal choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, follow their interests and work towards personal goals. People could personalise their rooms and take part in activities they chose.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence over their own lives.” from the report
Understanding communication
Staff understood different ways people communicated and used tools such as picture cards. Communication passports explained people's preferred methods and needs.
“Staff had good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff being patient, attentive and compassionate. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and need for personal space.
“We observed staff being attentive, caring and compassionate when supporting people.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to support people's needs and activities. Staff had relevant training, and medicine storage, administration and reviews were found to be safe.
“The number and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed earlier concerns about risk assessments, care planning, dignity and quality monitoring. The previous regulatory breaches had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The report still rated the home Well-led as Good, but families should ask who is currently responsible for day-to-day management.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Feedback process still developing
minorThe home had sent questionnaires to relatives, but the manager was still collecting and analysing the responses. Ask how feedback is turned into improvements.
“Questionnaires had recently been sent to relatives and the manager was in the process of collating and analysing the responses.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, given that there was no registered manager at the inspection?
- 02What did relatives say in the questionnaires, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including the use of picture cards or a communication passport?
- 04How will my relative's personal goals, interests and preferred activities be recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are medicines reviewed, especially if my relative needs anxiety medicine or has difficulty communicating?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and the Right support, right care, right culture principles. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found some important shortfalls, but the home was no longer in special measures.
Inspectors visited without notice on 9 and 10 January 2020. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, audits and other documents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, cleanliness and support for people's health needs were generally good. People also had more choice about food, activities and how they spent their time.
However, some risks were not recorded clearly enough. People's goals and current needs were not always reflected in their care plans. Inspectors also found that people were not always treated with dignity, and the home's checks had failed to identify some of these problems.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. The home had been in special measures since July 2019, but it left special measures because it was no longer rated Inadequate overall or in any key question.
Safer medicines
Medicines records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines were trained and checked for competence.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicines administration records (MAR) evidenced that people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Health support
People had access to healthcare professionals and staff followed professional advice. Care plans gave clear guidance for specialised health needs.
“People were supported well with their health needs and care plan information gave clear guidance about how people should be supported with specialised health needs.” from the report
More choice and activities
People could choose food and drinks, help with cooking and plan outings. Inspectors found more opportunities for people to go out and take part in activities.
“People told us they did more and there were more opportunities to go out and do things.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff said training, supervision and management support had improved. New staff shadowed experienced staff and did not work alone until they were confident and assessed as competent.
“Since our last inspection the support staff received had improved. Staff told us they felt able to undertake their roles safely and effectively.” from the report
Better involvement
People were more involved in their care plans, activities and everyday decisions. Staff responded to people's different ways of communicating.
“People were more involved in the service.” from the report
Care plans and personal goals
seriousSome care plans did not reflect people's current needs, and people's goals and aspirations had not been identified. This meant support was not consistently person-centred.
“Peoples goals and aspirations had not been identified. This meant they were not being supported to meet their full potential, become more independent or take as much control over their lives as possible.” from the report
Dignity and respect
seriousInspectors saw clothing that exposed a person's underwear and found other examples where people's dignity was not protected. Some language used by staff and in records was also not respectful.
“People were not always treated with respect and dignity. This was a continued breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Risk and emergency information
needs fixingSome risk information was inaccurate or incomplete. Fire instructions and personal emergency evacuation plans did not always tell staff clearly what to do.
“Although risks had been identified, information was not always recorded accurately to inform staff of the measures they should take to support people consistently.” from the report
Management checks
seriousThe provider had introduced more audits, but these checks had not found important problems with risk management, care plans and person-centred care.
“Shortfalls in risk management and care plan documentation, and the delivery of person-centred care had not identified through the providers own internal audits as areas which required improvement.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's care plan so it reflects their current needs, including mental health, diabetes, weight management and footcare?
- 02What goals and aspirations has my relative identified, and how will you record and review progress towards them?
- 03How do you record one-to-one support hours and show that they are used for meaningful activities or wellbeing support?
- 04What changes have you made to protect people's dignity, including clothing, privacy and the language staff use?
- 05How are managers checking that risk assessments, emergency plans and care plans are accurate and that previous shortfalls have been fixed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Church Lane
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.