We carried out a review of the data available to us about Church Walk on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Church Walk, you can give feedback on this service.
Church Walk is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 18 people, with complex physical and neurological conditions, including mental health needs, Huntington’s Disease, acquired brain injury, and early onset dementia. At the time of the inspection the service supported 13 people, over two separate units
People’s experience of using this service and what we found.
We found support plans did not always consider the impact of people’s health needs on their behaviour. We discussed this with the manager and the clinical nurse lead and manager agreed to review care plans to take this into account. We noted the service had specific resources that they could utilise to support people more effectively and staff we spoke with were keen to learn more about the impact of specific conditions on the people they supported.
Church Walk had a new manager who had applied to become the registered manager. People told us the manager was approachable and they had worked hard to ensure a more open culture at the service.
Relatives we spoke with were positive about the service and felt their family members were safe. They confirmed that regular contact was maintained and they were kept informed and updated of any changes happening within the home.
The home was clean and hygienic and we were assured that the service was following infection prevention and control procedures. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).
Staff were recruited safely and medicines were managed safely.
Staff were able to demonstrate knowledge of how to keep people safe and we saw that safeguarding procedures were being followed appropriately.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 23 December 2019)
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to the management of medicines and the management of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has not changed. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
Church Walk is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 18 people, both younger and older adults. It is registered to provide care for up to 18 people. At the time of the inspection the service supported 12 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found.
There were enough staff working at the service and they had been recruited safely.
Risks were assessed, and accidents and incidents were appropriately documented and recorded. Staff understood how to protect people from harm and reported incidents appropriately. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported. The provider understood their need to be open and honest.
Church Walk had an interim manager who had been appointed immediately before our inspection. The manager registered with CQC was on annual leave prior to taking up a new post with the provider service. They had worked with the provider to develop effective quality assurance systems to ensure safety, and to monitor quality. The new Interim manager informed us that they had completed a hand-over with the previously registered manager.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in line with positive behaviour support principles. Best interest decisions were recorded to ensure restraint was used as the least restrictive option.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 3 October 2019).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted due to concerns received about medicines and poor management. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe and well-led sections this report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Church Walk on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Church Walk offers person centred nursing care for people with complex physical and neurological conditions, including mental health needs, Huntington’s Disease, acquired brain injury, and early onset dementia.
The home is a purpose built two-storey building with 18 single ensuite bedrooms. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff understood how to ensure people were safe. Environmental risks and risks to individuals were identified and reviewed. There were enough staff on duty during our inspection to ensure the safety and well-being of people living at Church Walk. Any untoward incidents were analysed to ensure lessons were learnt and to help staff develop and share their understanding of people.
Before people were admitted to Church Walk the service took account of all available information to ensure they could be accommodated. Needs and wishes were regularly reviewed by the staff team, who had been provided with relevant training.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in line with positive behaviour support principles. Best interest decisions were recorded to ensure restraint was used as the least restrictive option.
People appeared well cared for. Staff had time to spend with and showed genuine affection for the people they supported. Information about people was held securely and included information about how to communicate with people. People’s likes and preferences were acknowledged and staff tried to maintain people’s activities as they would like. Care plans contained a lot of information separated into 27 sections which made them hard to navigate. The service had recognised this and was reviewing the way they stored and managed plans to provide a more person-centred approach to meeting need.
Church Walk had a new registered manager who was respected and valued by staff. They told us that they believed the service had changed for the better, and one member of staff said they had, “Put the positive back into the place”. Systems were in place to show the service was under constant monitoring and review, and the registered manager was well supported by the provider.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good. (published 28 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Our last comprehensive inspection took place on 1 August 2014. At this inspection, we found the service had complied with all the regulations we reviewed. However, it was acknowledged by the provider that opportunities for staff training and development needed to improve to help keep people safe. At the time of our last inspection a programme of training and support was being developed to help staff to carry out their role effectively.
Church Walk offers person centred nursing care for people with complex physical and neurological conditions, including mental health needs, Huntington’s Disease, acquired brain injury, early onset dementia including Korsakoffs and Frontal- temporal dementia.
The home is a purpose built two-storey building with 18 single en-suite bedrooms. The home is situated in a residential area of Rochdale and is close to local amenities. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service.
The registered manager had recently left the home. An acting manager was in place and we were told that it was their intention to register with the Care Quality Commission in the near future. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service has a condition of registration that it must have a registered manager. Because the service did not have a registered manager the well-led question cannot be rated better than ‘requires improvement’.
Relatives we spoke with told us that they thought their family members were safe at the service. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were able to tell us of the action they would take to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse.
Procedures were in place to help ensure staff were safely recruited. We saw sufficient numbers of staff were available to help support people’s assessed emotional, social and physical needs were met, so their health and well-being was maintained.
Systems were in place to ensure the safe handling of medicines and to reduce the risk of cross infection in the service.
Staff had access to the training and support they needed to help treat, care for and support people, safely and effectively.
The service had taken appropriate action to apply for restrictions in place in a person’s best interests to be legally authorised.
The service worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals. A consultant psychiatrist visited the service every week. This meant that people had access to the support they needed.
The premises was seen to be well maintained, comfortable, homely, clean, and tidy.
The atmosphere at the home was calm and relaxed and interactions between people and the staff team were seen to be frequent and friendly.
Care plans were in place to help ensure staff provided the level of support necessary to manage the identified risks. Care plans were regularly reviewed to address any changes in a person’s needs.
Activities were available for people to participate in and improvements were being put in place following a review by the new management team.
A recent review of the day-to-day operation of the service had identified shortfalls. These shortfalls were in the process of being addressed, including improvements to the culture at the home.
We found that the managers and staff demonstrated a commitment to continuing to drive forward improvements in the service. People and staff were being asked their views and opinions about the service and evidence showed that these were being listened to and acted upon.
Systems were in place to show the service was under constant monitoring and review, which included external assessment.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the registered provider.
Church Walk offers nursing care and support to people with a mental disorder and complex health care needs. The home is a purpose built two-storey building with 18 single en-suite bedrooms. The home is situated in a residential area of Rochdale and is close to local amenities. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home.
It was acknowledged that opportunities for staff training and development needed improving to keep people safe. A programme of training and support was being developed to support staff in carrying out their role.
We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant policies and procedures were in place to guide staff. Where people were being deprived of their liberty, relevant documentation was in place to show this had been authorised and was lawful. Senior staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. People’s human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.
People’s care records provided good information to direct staff in the safe delivery of their care, treatment and support. Records were kept under review so information reflected the current and changing needs of people. Information was stored securely ensuring confidentiality was maintained.
People were offered a wide range of activities both in and away from the home. These ranged from social and leisure activities to housekeeping and laundry. This offered people some structure to their day and where possible helped them to maintain their independent living skills.
Staff worked closely with healthcare agencies so that people received the care and treatment they needed. Information was shared with other services so that people continued to receive safe and effective care. The home did at times experience difficulties in accessing support for those people who were not originally from the local area.
Records showed people who had applied to work at the service had been robustly recruited so only those applicants suitable for employment were offered work at the home.
We saw sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people in meeting their emotional, social and physical needs so their health and well-being was maintained.
Systems to monitor and review the quality of service provided were in place to check that people received a quality service. People were offered a good standard of accommodation. Checks were made to the premises and servicing of equipment ensuring people were kept safe.
Systems were in place to protect the rights of people who may lack the capacity to make decisions about their own treatment, care and support. Where people's liberty was to be restricted, the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure people's rights were protected.
Staff worked closely with other agencies so that people's social, emotional and physical health care needs were effectively met.
Sufficient nursing and support staff were available to meet the specific needs of people. One staff member we spoke with said; 'We're a good team'.
Opportunities for on-going training and development were in place. Due to changes in the management team, team meetings and individual supervisions had not been held. These meetings would enable staff to discuss their individual needs.
Systems were in place to monitor and review the service provided. Suitable arrangements in the management and structure of the service were still to be made so that people continued to receive a safe and effective service. This was being addressed by the provider.
From our observations and discussions with staff it was clear they had a good understanding of the individual needs of people. Care records were also very detailed and directed staff in the delivery of care and support people required.
Records detailed people's individual preferences, wishes and choices and showed how they had been involved in planning their care and support.
People were provided with a good standard of accommodation that had been well maintained and was tastefully decorated.
Systems were in place to ensure that people living at the home were safeguarded from abuse. The manager and staff had completed training in these areas and were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.
Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that only those people suitable to work at the home were offered employment.
Staff were provided with on-going training and support to meet the needs of people at Church Walk. Staff spoken with during our visit confirmed they had regular training updates and said they could ask for other training if they felt it would benefit their work. They told us that the manager was 'very supportive' and they 'could approach them about anything'.
During this visit we did not ask people specific questions about these outcome areas. However we observed staff interactions with people. People at the home appeared to continue to have a good relationship with staff. The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly.
People were able to follow a lifestyle of their choosing. However where necessary additional monitoring and support was provided for some people as part of their placement agreement.
Staff were aware of the specific needs of people and of the need for specific interventions where there were concerns about their behaviour.
During our first visit we observed two people relaxing in the lounge. Both people required full assistance from staff in meeting all areas of their care. They appeared well cared for, were appropriately dressed and clean. Other people were doing activities of their own choosing. Some people were relaxing in their own room, whilst others had been out. One person told us that they had been out shopping.
We observed how staff interacted with people living at the home. Where necessary additional monitoring was put in place to observe people where there were concerns about their behaviour. Members of the team spoken with were all aware of the issues and what to do, if necessary.
People at the home appeared to have a good relationship with staff. The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly. Some of the people were able to come and go freely and this was seen during our visit.
Over the last year Church Walk has gone through a number of changes including the management of the home. Staff told us that 'things have improved since the change in management', 'systems are working well' and 'I like working at the home'. Another person said that the management team were 'very approachable' and 'will help out when it's needed'.
No further issues have been raised with us by the local authority commissioners or safeguarding team.
Comments were however received from a number of health and social care professionals involved with the service. Feedback was mixed. Whilst people felt the basic care provided with good, it was generally felt that structured 'therapeutic' support to meet the specific mental health needs of people was not being provided. Other issues were also identified in relation to poor care records, management of medication and lack of relevant qualified staff.