CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Churchfields Care Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, managed risks and safe medicines systems. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff received induction, supervision and training, and worked with health professionals to support people's health and nutrition.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff showed exceptional compassion, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in decisions and staff went to great lengths to support individual wishes and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and changed as people's needs changed. Activities were based on people's interests, communication needs were considered, and complaints were handled in line with the home's policy.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Leadership was described as exceptional. The provider and manager had a clear vision, listened to people and staff, and used audits, feedback and incidents to improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Churchfields Care Home was rated Outstanding overall, with exceptionally caring and well-led support and Good ratings for safety, effectiveness and responsiveness.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staffing and the home environment. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring and well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe, effective and responsive were rated Good. People were described as safe, respected and involved in their care.
Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture. Staff were praised for kindness, compassion and knowing people well. Care plans were updated as needs changed, activities were tailored to individual interests, and end of life care was described as comfortable and dignified.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2017. Caring and well-led improved from Good to Outstanding. The other ratings remained Good.
Kind and compassionate care
Inspectors found a strong culture of kindness and respect. Staff built meaningful relationships and treated people as individuals.
“Everyone, without exception, spoke of the commendable kindness, compassion and understanding shown by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff adapted care, equipment and activities to people's needs, wishes and interests. This helped some people regain confidence, independence or enjoyment.
“Staff went to exceptional lengths to get to know people and engage with them in a way that valued them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, and staff's competence was checked.
“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
End of life care
The home worked with health professionals and trained staff to provide care intended to be comfortable, dignified and pain-free.
“People experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
Strong leadership and improvement
The provider and manager involved people and staff in decisions. They used audits, feedback and learning from incidents to improve the service.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place which were used to drive improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's needs if their health or independence changed?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given correctly and recorded accurately?
- 03How would you tailor activities and social contact to my relative's past interests and communication needs?
- 04What staffing levels and staff training would support my relative's particular nursing or personal care needs?
- 05How would you involve our family and health professionals in end of life planning and support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings were assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some incomplete records identified and improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with six people, one relative, seven staff and three health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans, kind staff and activities suited to people's interests.
The report also records that a care plan audit had found some incomplete records. Action had been taken to improve this. A relative also raised a concern about food being served cold, which the management said they were looking into.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed. There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people's needs.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and protected their privacy and dignity. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received care and support from staff who were caring, compassionate and kind.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes and preferences. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans reflected how each person wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from group and one-to-one activities, including music, art, pet therapy and outings into the local community.
“People had access to a range of activities which they could be involved with, including group and one to one activities.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found a clear management structure and systems for gathering feedback, reviewing incidents and monitoring quality.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.” from the report
Incomplete care records
minorA quality check found incomplete records in one area of care planning. The report says action had been taken and record keeping had improved.
“one care plan audit identified incomplete records and action had been taken to ensure that record keeping in this area had improved.” from the report
Food temperature concern
minorA relative had raised a concern that cooked food was sometimes cold. The management said they were looking into it.
“I have raised a concern about cooked food which was a bit cold with the manager and owner and they say they are looking into it” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure care records are complete and kept up to date?
- 02What action was taken after the concern about cooked food being cold?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans?
- 05Which activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, mobility and communication needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 2017 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 Churchfields Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- March 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.