Rated Care Homes

Church View

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2015.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 59 of 72

    rated care homes in Rotherham are rated Good, like this one.

Church View: inspection record

Care home, 25 beds, Rotherham

Rated Good in September 2026.

Church View: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. RI
    Wilton House Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Ten Acre Respite Service Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. O
    Fairwinds Outstanding, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Lonnen Grove Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Cherry Trees Good, 0.9 miles away

See all care homes in Rotherham

See all care homes in Central Rotherham

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 17 September 2026 (assessment visit 25 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Our view of the service

About the service

Church View is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 25 adults. There were 24 people using the service at the time of the assessment.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Who the service is for

The service supports people with a primary diagnosis of mental health. People live in small groups that share a kitchen, lounge and dining area. This helped to create a familiar home environment where people had opportunities to develop daily living skills and staff supported people in a person-centred and flexible way.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 2 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. Support plans included risk assessments which detailed risks and how to mitigate them. Leaders involved staff in learning lessons when things went wrong and identified and implemented improved practices together. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent in the safe administration of medicines. Some people were supported to self-administer their medicines when this had been assessed as safe for them to do so. The environment was predominantly clean, and regular checks were in place to ensure both the building and any equipment was safe and complied with guidance. Safe recruitment processes were in place to help the management team recruit suitable staff. Staff received appropriate training to help them carry out their roles effectively. Staff told us they felt supported. One staff member said, “I like the way the service is managed. Everyone is friendly and enjoys coming to work.”

Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise abuse and take appropriate actions to keep people safe. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were applied for and overseen appropriately. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff understood the MCA and knew how to involve people in decisions about their support. One staff member said, “I make sure people have choices and are involved. Any changes are recorded in their support plans.”

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and at regular intervals. People were involved in planning their care and support. Staff understood people's needs and worked with them to achieve their goals. We saw staff gaining people's consent prior to carrying out care tasks. External professionals were complimentary about the support people received. One external professional said, “Staff are knowledgeable and experienced and especially working with individuals with complex needs and who have resided there [Church View] for a long period of time. They are able to predict their needs and ensure these are met.”

Staff provided a friendly and homely environment where people felt safe and supported. People complimented staff for their dedication, patience and kindness. Social stimulation was provided by an activity co-ordinator and staff. People had access to the community and took part in social events both in and out of the service.

People received support from staff who understood their needs and promoted person-centred care. Support plans reflected people’s wishes and goals. People were supported to design their bedrooms how they liked them, with personal possessions and familiar items. Staff were focused on ensuring people received a service tailor made to suit their needs. One staff member said, “The positivity of staff impacts on people who live here. [They are] knowledgeable about people's needs and risk involved in their care.” One external professional said, “I have noticed that staff at Church View are keen to promote and maintain residents’ independence where possible, encouraging them to access the community when appropriate to do so and spending 1:1 time with them to do this.”

Staff and people felt involved in decisions about the service and were provided with many different forums where they could voice their views. People and staff felt listened to and valued.

The management team were visible in the service and demonstrated an open and transparent management style. Staff and people felt at ease to approach the management team and spoke about them operating an open-door policy. One staff member said, “It's like a family here. The management team are interested in you, and all are fantastic. We all support each other and people living here.” Governance systems were effective in identifying areas for improvement and taking action to address them. This helped people receive consistently good care and support.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Joanne Jones
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

5 inspection reports, latest 4 February 2020. Latest assessment published 17 September 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Provider
Parkcare Homes (No.2) LimitedBrand: Priory Group
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
04000281 (opens Companies House)

Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited runs 88 services in England, 9 of them in Yorkshire and the Humber. 72 are rated Good or Outstanding, 12 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 4 have no rating yet.

Other services run by Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited

  1. O
    Fitzwilliam Lodge Outstanding. Care home, Rotherham
  2. O
    Riverview Outstanding. Care home, Devon, South West
  3. O
    Tree Top View Outstanding. Care home, Lancashire, North West
  4. G
    95 Bromyard Road Good. Care home, Worcestershire, West Midlands

See all 88 services run by Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited

Getting help from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Church View provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Church View as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Church View have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 25 beds at Church View.
When was Church View last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Church View was published on 17 September 2026.
Who runs Church View?
Church View is run by Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited. It runs 88 services in England, 9 of them in Yorkshire and the Humber.
What is Church View's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 17 September 2026.

Contact

Phone
01709 557658
Address
Church Street, Kimberworth, Rotherham, S61 1EP Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. RI
    Wilton House Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
  2. G
    Ten Acre Respite Service Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. O
    Fairwinds Outstanding, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Lonnen Grove Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Cherry Trees Good, 0.9 miles away

See all care homes in Rotherham

See all care homes in Central Rotherham