CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Churchill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, fire safety, infection control and medicines were managed well, although staffing levels had prompted mixed views before an extra daytime staff member was added.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had thorough assessments, suitable care plans, trained staff and access to health professionals. Meals reflected people’s needs and preferences, and staff sought consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity, equality, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People could choose activities, keep in touch with family and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, person-centred culture, with audits, meetings and feedback systems. However, one notification was sent with incorrect information and had to be corrected.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concerns about staffing time and one incorrect notification.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was unannounced and took place on 26 October 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, staff and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy. The home was clean, medicines and risks were managed safely, and staff were trained and supported. Care plans reflected people’s needs, choices, communication, culture and faith.
Inspectors found staff to be kind and respectful. People were involved in their care, supported to stay in touch with family and take part in activities, and able to raise complaints. The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found good standards overall, although they also identified some areas that needed attention.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy living at the home. Risk assessments, safety checks and safeguarding arrangements supported this.
“People told us they felt safe and were happy living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw and heard that staff treated people with kindness, respect and genuine interest in their wellbeing.
“Staff were caring and respectful. One person told us, "The staff are kind and caring to me.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s needs, wishes, communication, health, culture and equality characteristics. People and relatives were involved in decisions.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff recorded medicines after giving them, checked medicines regularly and supported people to take them safely.
“Staff managed medicines safely. Staff responsible for administering and recording medicines, completed medicine administration records (MARs)” from the report
Good links with professionals
The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s ongoing needs.
“The management team had good working relationships with health and social care professionals to help maintain people's care and support needs.” from the report
Staff time and activities
needs fixingThere were mixed views about staffing. A relative and a staff member said more staff or a cook could give care staff more time for activities and personal care.
“We have to do cooking, cleaning, and washing, and household jobs [in addition to supporting people with personal care].” from the report
Incorrect notification
needs fixingThe manager sent one notification to the CQC with wrong information. It was sent again correctly, and the manager said systems had been reviewed to prevent a repeat.
“Although the registered manager was open and transparent, they were not always effective in sending correct notifications.” from the report
Interior decoration
minorInspectors found the home clean and well maintained, but said the interiors would benefit from redecoration. The manager said this was already planned.
“We observed the interiors would benefit from decoration.” from the report
- 01What difference has the additional daytime staff member made to activities and staff time for cooking, cleaning and laundry?
- 02What changes were made to the notification system after one notification was sent with incorrect information?
- 03When will the planned redecoration be completed?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
- 05How do you check that medicines are recorded correctly and that any errors are identified quickly?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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.
Every inspection of Churchill House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.