CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Church View Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found insufficient night staffing, weak risk management, unsafe medicines processes and gaps in infection control. People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff training and supervision were not consistent. The home supported people's nutrition and access to health professionals, but its environment and mental capacity processes needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence, choices and emotional wellbeing, including through support for pets.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and offered activities, visits and community access. Care plans did not always contain enough information or involve people and families fully.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not identify several problems, and feedback from people, relatives and staff was not regularly collected. Staff and residents' meetings were also not regular.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but ongoing safety, staffing, medicines and oversight problems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 15 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, training records and management records. They also checked the building and observed medicines being given.
The home was not always safe or well managed. There were not enough staff at night, risk checks were incomplete, medicines were not always handled safely and infection control practices were inconsistent. Staff training and supervision were also not regular enough. These issues led to breaches of regulations.
People described staff as kind and said they felt safe. The home was rated Good for caring and responsive care. However, its overall rating was Requires Improvement, meaning inspectors found important areas that must improve and said they would continue to monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's dignity and not rushing them.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could make choices about daily routines, meals and clothing. Staff supported people to do things for themselves.
“People were supported to maintain their independence.” from the report
Nutrition and healthcare
People could choose where to eat, were offered support and had access to drinks. Relevant health professionals were involved when needed.
“People were supported to eat and drink safely.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse. Accidents and incidents were recorded with actions taken.
“People were protected from the risks of abuse.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousThere were not enough staff at night to keep people safe in an emergency. Staff were also taken from domestic and activity duties to provide care during the day.
“There were insufficient staffing numbers at night to maintain the safety of people in an emergency.” from the report
Risk and fire safety checks
seriousRisk assessments were missing or out of date for some people. Water safety checks, environmental checks, equipment servicing and action from a fire risk assessment were not reliably completed.
“Systems were not robust enough to ensure risks were assessed and managed safely.” from the report
Medicines
seriousPain relief patches, creams, opened medicines, oxygen storage and as-required medicine instructions were not always managed safely.
“Medicines were not always managed safely or in line with prescribers' directions.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingSome training was overdue or showed low completion, and staff did not receive regular supervision. The manager introduced a supervision schedule during the inspection.
“Supervisions were not happening regularly.” from the report
Care planning and involvement
needs fixingSome care plans lacked important detail and were not completed with people or relatives. People and families were not regularly asked for their views.
“Care plans were not always completed with people or their relatives and did not always contain all the information needed.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits did not identify several problems, and there was not enough analysis of accidents, safeguarding and staff training. Staff and residents' meetings were not regular.
“Governance systems were not always effective or in place.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now scheduled at night, and how do you ensure there are enough staff for an emergency?
- 02Which risk assessments, water safety checks, fire actions and equipment servicing issues from the report have now been completed?
- 03How are medicines such as pain patches, creams, oxygen and as-required medicines checked and recorded now?
- 04How do you record staff training and regular supervision, including fire safety, first aid, safeguarding and mental capacity?
- 05How are residents and relatives now involved in care planning and asked for their views?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control, with records, staff practice, the building and management systems examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but staffing and oversight were not reliable enough.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection over two days. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Care was personalised and responsive. Food choices, healthcare support, activities and complaints handling were also viewed positively.
However, staffing levels were sometimes too low and staff were expected to cover extra duties. This delayed some medicines and placed people at risk of harm. Quality checks and management oversight were not strong enough. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with the same rating for Safe, Effective and Well-led, and Good ratings for Caring and Responsive.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors observed compassion and support for privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind, caring, attentive and treated them with respect.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Records were completed accurately, and staff had training and competency checks.
“We saw that medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's needs, preferences and interests. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing care plans.
“Care files contained documents reflecting each person's assessment of needs.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and recorded visits, reasons for contact and outcomes.
“The registered manager worked effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure people received a good standard of healthcare care.” from the report
Staffing levels and extra duties
seriousThere were not always enough staff, particularly at busy times. Staff also covered cleaning, laundry, meals, clerical work and answering the phone, which contributed to delays with medicines.
“The provider failed to review and ensure there were sufficient competent staff on duty to meet people's needs. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's systems did not reliably identify and address risks. Staff roles were unclear, support for the manager had been withdrawn and audits were not always formally recorded.
“Our findings showed governance arrangements had not been robust enough.” from the report
Laundry problems
needs fixingLaundry arrangements had caused problems, including concerns about missing clothing. The report says changes were made after the inspection.
“Although staff had access to and used protective personal equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons there were issues that had not been addressed in the laundry.” from the report
Meal presentation and choices
minorThe menu was not clearly displayed and there were no visual aids for people with signs of dementia. The provider agreed to address this.
“The menu was not clearly displayed and there was no visual aids available to help residents with signs of dementia to make menu choices.” from the report
- 01How many staff will be on duty during mornings, medicines rounds and other busy periods?
- 02How will cleaning, laundry, meal preparation, clerical work and answering the phone be covered without taking care staff away from residents?
- 03What changes have been made to prevent medicines being delayed when staff are helping people to get up and dressed?
- 04How are pre-admission assessments now completed, and who confirms that the home can meet a person's needs before they move in?
- 05What formal audits and checks are now carried out, and how does the provider make sure that identified problems are fixed?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions; the report also compares the findings with the previous inspection published on 23 November 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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 Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Church View Residential Home →
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Church View Residential Home →
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 June 2012.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.