CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Churchill House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Safety checks were not always completed, fire procedures were not understood consistently, and some medicine records were incomplete. Medicines were nevertheless safely stored and administered, and staff were safely recruited.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says people were happy with their care and felt well looked after.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. No current rating is given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was open and approachable, and improvements had been made after the previous breach. However, audits had not identified the safety, medicine and environmental shortfalls found by inspectors.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Churchill House rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe medicine arrangements but gaps in safety checks, staffing availability and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 November 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led only. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Environmental and fire safety checks were not consistently completed, staff had mixed understanding of fire procedures, and some medicine safety records were incomplete. Staff were sometimes too busy to provide meaningful engagement, and feedback about staffing levels was mixed.
There were also positive findings. Medicines were safely stored and given, staff recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were sound, care plans helped manage known risks, and people said they felt safe and well cared for. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17, but the overall rating remained Requires Improvement.
Medicine administration
Medicines were safely received, stored and administered. Stocks were correct, reviews took place, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were safely received, stored and administered. Quantities of medicines stocked were correct.” from the report
Safeguarding and recruitment
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. Recruitment checks were completed before staff worked with people.
“Recruitment files showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.” from the report
Care planning
Care plans covered known risks and were kept up to date. Staff followed the plans to help keep people safe.
“Care plans contained explanations of the control measures for staff to follow to keep people safe.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as approachable and responsive to feedback. Staff and professionals said they could raise concerns and worked well with management.
“The feedback from healthcare professionals was that the service was well-led, providing clear leadership and staff support that promoted a nurturing and caring environment.” from the report
Fire and environmental checks
seriousChecks of fire equipment, fire exits and the environment were not always completed as required. Staff also gave mixed accounts of what to do in a fire, and there was no evidence of simulated evacuations.
“Regular checks of the environment were not always completed in line with the providers policy.” from the report
Staff availability
needs fixingStaff were busy and care could become task focused. Feedback was mixed about whether staffing levels met people's needs promptly.
“However, staff were busy and care appeared at times task centred.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome records for extra medicine safety measures were missing or had not been updated. The provider said this would be addressed immediately.
“Some medicine records where not updated or in place for additional safety considerations.” from the report
Quality audits
needs fixingThe home completed audits, but they had not detected the fire safety, medicine and environmental problems found during the inspection.
“A range of audits were completed, however, they had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection in relation to fire safety, medicines and environment checks.” from the report
- 01How often are fire panels, fire exits and other environmental safety checks now completed, and can we see the records?
- 02Have staff completed simulated fire evacuations, and how are you checking that all staff understand the fire procedure?
- 03What has changed to make sure there are enough staff available for people's care and meaningful activities?
- 04Have all medicine risk assessments and specific instructions been updated, including those for paraffin-based products?
- 05How will your audits identify problems that were missed during this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and were used from the previous inspection to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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, April 2020
Churchill House was rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and responsive, but safety records and quality checks were not reliable enough.
CQC made an unannounced, planned inspection visit on 28 January and 6 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff, a visiting professional and managers. They observed care and checked rooms, cleanliness, care files, medicines, staff records and management documents.
The home was rated Good for effective, caring and responsive care. People had enough staff, received support with food and healthcare, and were treated kindly. They had personalised rooms, activities and choice about their routines. Complaints were investigated and visitors were welcome.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe and well-led care. Medicines records were not always up to date, some areas were not clean, and some decisions and care records were incomplete or out of date. Quality systems had failed to find and fix these problems. The overall rating had been Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and had remained so for three inspections in a row.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about staff. Staff were patient, reassuring and supported people's dignity and independence.
“Staff were caring, friendly and helpful. People, their relatives and professionals spoke highly of staff.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks and staff training helped ensure staff had suitable skills and experience.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and they supported people in a timely manner.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had a varied diet and received support with eating and drinking. Staff contacted healthcare professionals promptly and followed their advice.
“People's healthcare needs were met in a timely way. Staff supported people to access healthcare services and followed professional advice.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could take part in a range of activities, maintain relationships and have visitors when they chose. The home also supported people to access the community.
“People were supported to engage in a wide range of activities.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits and monitoring had not found or fixed all the problems identified by inspectors. Accident and incident information was not analysed well enough to reduce the risk of problems happening again.
“Governance systems had failed to identify the issues we found during our inspection.” from the report
Incomplete medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but records for as-needed medicines, creams and fridge temperatures were not always up to date. CQC recommended that the provider review its practice.
“Medicine records were not always up to date.” from the report
Cleanliness problems
needs fixingSome rooms had unpleasant smells and some pressure-relieving equipment was dirty. The home addressed the issues during the inspection, but its systems had not identified them first.
“Areas of the service were not always clean.” from the report
Care plans not always clear
needs fixingOlder information was sometimes left in care plans, making it difficult to know people's current needs. Some records did not show that support had been provided in line with care plans.
“Older information was not always removed which sometimes made it difficult to determine people's current needs.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure medicines records, including as-needed medicines, creams and fridge temperatures, are kept up to date?
- 02How are you now checking that care plans contain only current information and accurately record the care provided?
- 03How are best-interest decisions about equipment such as bed rails and sensor mats recorded and reviewed?
- 04What new checks are in place to identify cleanliness problems before they are found by inspectors?
- 05How are accidents and incidents now analysed so that lessons are learned and risks are reduced?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care provided, medicines, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 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 Churchill House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.