CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Church View Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and safe medicines management. Infection control measures had also improved since the previous inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, with timely referrals to health services. Staff had induction, supervision and training, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, support for privacy and dignity, and encouragement for people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities were matched to people's interests and abilities. The home also provided responsive communication support and good end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, effective teamwork and quality checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines and incidents. Staff said they felt supported and involved in improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and received Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean areas, good support with eating and healthcare, and respectful care.
The home provided personalised activities and support for people living with dementia. Inspectors also found good end of life care and close working with health professionals. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published on 15 January 2019, so the overall rating had improved.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted care to their needs, abilities and past interests. Inspectors saw examples of people making progress and becoming more independent.
“The management team and staff ensured people received personalised care which had positive impact on their lives.” from the report
Activities matched to people
Activities were based on people's histories, communication abilities and interests. This included tailored sensory activities and practical activities linked to past skills.
“The service ensured arrangements for social activities met people's individual needs and followed best practice guidance so people could live as full a life as possible.” from the report
End of life support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and a local hospice to provide emotional, practical and symptom support. Inspectors found that people received dignified and comfortable care at the end of life.
“People experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw medicines being given and recorded correctly. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. We saw people were attended to and supported in a timely manner and staff were not rushed.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had made significant changes since the previous inspection. Inspectors found a clear structure, supportive leadership and systems intended to drive further improvement.
“It was clear the service had made a lot of positive changes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure the staffing improvements found at the inspection have been maintained?
- 02How would you find out about my relative's past interests and use this information to plan activities?
- 03How are care plans reviewed and updated when a person's needs change?
- 04How do you support people with communication needs, including changes in language, hearing or sight?
- 05How would you work with the local hospice and other professionals if my relative needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and improved medicines management, but gaps remained in safety, care records and leadership.
Inspectors visited over three days. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, training, equipment and audits.
People generally said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Staff were described as kind, and people had enough food and drink. Medicines were managed more safely than at the previous inspection.
However, some equipment and records did not support safe care. Risk information was incomplete in places, some care plans lacked important detail, and some care intervention charts had not been completed. The home also had no registered manager and its checks had missed some problems.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Improved medicines management
Medicines were securely stored, properly recorded and disposed of appropriately. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, improvements had been made and medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the staff and care. Staff promoted privacy and dignity by knocking before entering rooms and using screens during care.
“People were complimentary about the staff team and said they were kind and caring.” from the report
Food and health support
People had choices at mealtimes, drinks and snacks were offered, and weight concerns were discussed with health professionals.
“People's weight was monitored and any concerns were discussed with the GP and dietician.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People could join activities based on their interests, including bingo, music and seasonal events. Care plans also recorded personal interests to help staff start conversations.
“People could join in with a range of social activity, which was arranged by designated staff.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingSome equipment and waste bins were not in good condition, and records did not show that hoist slings and privacy screens had been laundered. These issues were addressed during the inspection, but the home's audits had missed them.
“At this inspection, we identified some equipment which compromised good infection prevention and control.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousInformation about one person's choking risk was limited and conflicting. Another person had two accidents while being helped with a hoist, despite instructions in their care plan.
“One person had been assessed as being at risk of choking.” from the report
Care records and missed care
seriousSome care plans did not clearly describe health needs or what staff should do. Incomplete intervention charts did not show whether people had received required care, and two people had missed an evening meal.
“The incomplete records did not evidence people had received the care they required.” from the report
Inconsistent management
needs fixingThere was no registered manager, and three managers had left in quick succession before registering. Staff said the changes had been unsettling and had led to different approaches.
“There had been inconsistent management and leadership, since the resignation of the last registered manager.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and checking repositioning, food and fluid support, and other care interventions?
- 02What specific changes have been made to assess and monitor choking risks and accidents involving hoists or other equipment?
- 03How do you check that care plans contain clear instructions for PEG care, diabetes monitoring and other health needs?
- 04Who is responsible for the home while there is no registered manager, and when will the registration applications be submitted?
- 05How have infection control audits been changed so they identify problems with equipment, bins and laundering records?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on three dates and the first day unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 2019 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 View Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.