Background to this inspection
Updated
16 July 2016
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 provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 23 June 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection, we reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the home, which included notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted local authority commissioners of adult social care services and Healthwatch and asked them for their views of the service provided.
We spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives, two members of the care staff, the cook, HR advisor, deputy manager, registered manager and a representative of the provider.
We looked at all or parts of the care records and other relevant records of six people who used the service, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service. We also reviewed staff records.
Updated
16 July 2016
We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 23 June 2016. Bank House is registered to accommodate up to 14 people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of the inspection there were nine people using the service.
On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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.
People were supported by staff who could identify the potential signs of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed. There were enough staff to keep people safe and people’s medicines were managed safely. However, more detailed guidance for the administration of ‘as needed’ medicines was needed.
People were supported by staff who completed an induction prior to commencing their role and had the skills, training in place and their performance regularly reviewed to enable them to support people effectively.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, had been followed when decisions were made about people’s care. People received a varied diet that took into account their food and drink preferences. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff and external professionals where required.
Staff treated people with respect and dignity and listened to and acted upon their views. Innovative ways to ensure people’s privacy were in place. People were involved with decisions made about their care and were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.
People were encouraged to follow the hobbies and interests that were important to them. Staff ensured people who were unable to join in with group activities were not socially isolated. People’s care records were person centred and focused on providing them with care and support in the way in which they wanted. Although some of these documents required updating. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.
The registered manager was visible throughout the inspection and staff and people who lived at the home spoke highly of them. Relatives did feel that communication from the management team about their family members’ care could be improved. The registered manager led the service well and had a clear understanding of how to support people in a safe and effective way. Robust quality assurance processes were in place. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the quality of the service and this information was used to make improvements.