Bankfield House Care Home

Updated 7 April 2026

Date of assessment: 2 June to 17 June 2026

Bankfield House is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care to 30 people aged 65 years and over with a variety of conditions at the time of our visits. Some people at the home were living with dementia. The home is registered to provide care for up to 30 people over 2 floors in one building.

At our last inspection, we found five breaches of regulation. At this assessment, we found that some improvements had been made. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations relating to safeguarding and people’s nutrition and hydration. However, there were continued breaches of three regulations relating to the delivery of person-centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance within the service. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this assessment.

Staff did not always provide care in a way that was safe, particularly for people who required support with moving and handling. While staff understood people’s needs, care records were not always accurate or consistent with guidance on how care should be provided. Improvements in relation to medicines records were needed. There were some shortfalls in recruitment processes; however, these were addressed immediately by the registered manager. There were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs, and not all staff had completed training relevant to their role. Appropriate systems were in place to safeguard people, and learning from incidents had been embedded.

Assessments and care plans were in place and were reviewed regularly. Staff worked together to meet people’s needs and sought support from healthcare professionals when required. However, further work was needed to ensure that consent to care was consistently obtained before support was provided.

Care was not always provided in a way that met people’s needs. For example, we observed that people did not always receive sufficient reassurance when they became distressed during moving and handling. It was not always clear that care plans were being followed, for example in relation to repositioning to protect skin integrity or providing additional support for people at risk of weight loss. Further consideration was needed to ensure people experienced dignified end-of-life care, particularly those living in shared rooms.

The registered manager had introduced a range of systems for oversight and governance. While some improvements were noted, these systems were not always used effectively. For example, care plan audits had been completed but had not identified inconsistencies or inaccuracies in records or checked whether care plans were followed through review of daily records. Not all relevant information known by staff about people’s needs was reflected in care plans. Medicines audits were completed; however, these were generic and lacked sufficient detail to identify the concerns we found. The registered manager was open to feedback and responded promptly to address concerns.

Updated 7 April 2026

People were generally content living at the home; however, we received mixed feedback about the quality of care, staffing levels, mealtime options, and the range of activities.

Several people commented that staff were kind, although others raised concerns. One person told us, “Most of the time it is good here, but I still have problems with some carers.”

Some people spoke positively about the activities available, while others said there was not enough to do and that they could not go outside when they wished. One person told us, “There are activities and we visit places of interest locally. Plus, I love nature and can go in the garden and see the squirrels, the wildlife and the flowers. There is always someone I can sit with and talk to if I want.” During the inspection, we observed some activities. However, these did not clearly demonstrate how activity planning was tailored to meet individuals’ needs.

Some people commented positively about the responsiveness of the kitchen staff. One person told us, “There is a choice each day and if there is something that you fancy, if you tell them they will make a note of it and make it for you at some point.” However, another person said, “The food is fine. It gets a bit repetitive.” This was reflected in people’s meal records.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), which is a structured way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who are unable to speak with us. We observed that staff were not consistently available to respond to people’s requests for support, and there were limited opportunities for meaningful interaction between staff and people.

People and their relatives knew who the registered manager was and felt able to share ideas and raise concerns. One relative told us, “There was a succession of managers for a while, which was disconcerting, but now I have no worries at all. [Registered manager] has turned the place around and I have peace of mind that [family member] is there and receiving really good care. Credit where it’s due.”