Bankfield House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or consistently respect their privacy and dignity.

People told us that most staff were kind and compassionate; however, they raised concerns about the behaviour of some staff. One person said, “Staff-wise, 99% are good, but there is always one who wants to cut corners… Some are a bit rough, they pull your clothes off hard and don’t ask before they start moving you.” Another person told us, “It’s just the attitude of some of the staff. The majority are kind and gentle though.”

During our site visits, we mostly observed kind and considerate interactions between staff and people. One relative commented, “I’ve got to say the staff have been brilliant. I have discussed thoroughly with them the approach we are taking so that [family member] is getting a consistent approach from all of us. They have been really good and helpful for me as well.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure that care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not consistently take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural backgrounds, and protected characteristics.

Some people raised concerns about how they were cared for. One person told us, “I think they forget sometimes that as you get older, you aren’t as quick at doing things. I wouldn’t say they are rough when helping me, it’s more impatience than roughness.”

Our observations of care delivery were mixed. We saw both positive examples of individualised care, as well as care that was task-focused and time-driven.

Care plans included information about people’s wishes and preferences, including details about their life histories. Most staff understood people’s needs and preferences. However, this did not always result in care being delivered in a consistently individualised, person-centred way.

The provider promoted people’s independence, supporting them to understand their rights and have choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing.

Care plans included information about what people could do for themselves and where they required support. People were encouraged to maintain their independence where possible. For example, some people were supported to continue managing their own medicines.

We observed that most people were encouraged to make choices about their daily lives. However, some people told us they would like more opportunities to go out and said they did not always have the chance to do so. The registered manager shared examples of how people were supported to access the community.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s needs in a timely way or take appropriate action to minimise discomfort, concern, or distress.

We observed occasions where there were delays in supporting people. This included delays when people requested assistance to use the toilet, when drinks were offered, and during mealtimes. People also told us they had concerns about how quickly staff were able to respond to requests for help. Staff did not always provide the reassurance or encouragement people needed when delivering care and support.

However, we observed that staff were well-intentioned and cared about the people they supported. One person commented, “The staff will pop their heads in the door and have a chat if they are not too busy.”

The provider promoted the wellbeing of staff and supported them to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt well supported in their roles. One staff member said, “The home is very friendly and there are equal rights for everyone.” Another staff member commented, “Things feel calmer and more stable at the home.”

The registered manager told us they had an open-door approach and encouraged staff to discuss any concerns. Staff confirmed they felt able to speak openly with the registered manager. The registered manager also gave examples of how they supported staff, including offering flexibility within the staff rota and encouraging staff to undertake further training, such as National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in care.

The registered manager told us they were looking at additional ways to support and develop the workforce, including introducing an ‘employee of the month’ award and ensuring positive feedback was shared with staff.