CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Churchill Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and regular checks of the environment and fire equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and goals were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training, supported healthy lifestyles and worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, could express their views in different ways and were supported to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's routines, choices and preferences. Staff understood what caused anxiety and supported activities and community access.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, regular meetings, quality checks and a manager who understood their responsibilities. The service used feedback and shared learning to improve care.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Churchill Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with end-of-life planning still not in place.
This was a planned inspection on 26 March 2019. One inspector spoke with one person living there, two staff members and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, incidents, complaints, training and management records, and sought feedback from health and social care professionals.
The home supported up to three adults with autistic spectrum disorder. Two people lived there at the time. Inspectors found a small, consistent team who knew people well and supported their choices, independence, relationships, community activities and personal goals.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspectors found legal requirements were met and that care was consistently managed to provide good outcomes.
One area needed further development. End-of-life plans were not in place, although the manager said the team was discussing how to begin these conversations.
Consistent staff
People were supported by a small team who had worked at the home for several years. Staff knew people's needs, preferences and causes of anxiety well.
“People were supported by a small but consistent team of long-term staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped plan their care and set personal goals. They were supported to make their own decisions and to live as independently as possible.
“People were involved in planning their care.” from the report
Community access
People were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and use local community facilities. They could take part in activities they chose.
“People had good access to their local community and opportunities to meet people and were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family.” from the report
Managing anxiety
Staff understood what could make people anxious and used routines, clear information and a calm environment to help people feel settled.
“This resulted in people being relaxed and being able to enjoy doing things they wanted to do.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorEnd-of-life plans had not been written. The manager said the team was discussing how best to start these conversations with people.
“End of life plans were not in place.” from the report
- 01How have you progressed with making end-of-life plans since this inspection?
- 02How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and yearly personal goals?
- 03What support would my relative receive to manage anxiety when routines or plans change?
- 04How would you support my relative to access the local community and maintain family and friendship relationships?
- 05How do you make sure staff understand my relative's communication preferences and individual needs?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, including the premises and care provided, and all five rating areas were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Churchill Road rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some records and medicine reviews needed improvement.
This was an announced inspection on 6 September 2016. The home supported two people at the time, although it was registered for up to three. Inspectors reviewed care and management records, staffing, training, recruitment and quality checks. They spoke with staff, the registered manager and one person living at the home.
Inspectors found that people received safe, effective, caring and personalised support. Staff knew people's routines, preferences and anxiety triggers. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, use local facilities and take part in activities. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding systems and environmental risks were judged safe.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors recommended improving record keeping. They also said over-the-counter medicines should be reviewed and found that some management checks and meetings were not consistently recorded.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected each person's needs, including how Asperger's syndrome affected daily life. Staff understood people's triggers, routines and preferred ways of communicating.
“Care plans were in place that described how the person would like to be supported.” from the report
Consistent staffing
Staffing was judged sufficient, and many staff had worked with the organisation for years. This gave people a familiar and consistent approach.
“There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff showed empathy and knew people's interests, dislikes and personal histories.
“Positive interactions between people and staff were observed.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to be independent, access the community and follow activities that suited them. They could also raise concerns in ways that caused less anxiety.
“People had a structured timetable of activities throughout the week.” from the report
Over-the-counter medicines
needs fixingThe list of over-the-counter medicines had not been reviewed since 2008. Inspectors said this should be reviewed with the person's GP.
“This would benefit from a review with the person's GP as this had not been reviewed since 2008.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingOne staff member did not know the local authority's role in safeguarding or that abuse allegations should be reported to its safeguarding team. The staff member was directed to the relevant policy and a training update was planned.
“However, the member of staff was not aware of the role of the local authority in safeguarding vulnerable adults.” from the report
Incomplete management records
needs fixingSome provider visits, trustee visits and senior management meetings were not recorded consistently. Inspectors said this meant there was not always evidence of risks or improvements being discussed.
“The lack of records meant that information may get lost over time and there was no evidence of any discussions about any risks or improvements.” from the report
- 01Has the list of over-the-counter medicines been reviewed with the person's GP, and when was this completed?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member understands how and where to report safeguarding concerns?
- 03Are provider and trustee visits now completed at the planned frequency, with written records?
- 04Are senior management meetings now minuted, including decisions about risks and improvements?
- 05How will you support a new resident if the people currently living at the home do not want anyone else to move in?
This was an announced inspection covering the overall service and all five rating areas, but inspectors had limited direct discussion with people and reviewed one person's records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2016 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 Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.