Bankfield House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 sought to ensure people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed to determine whether the service could meet those needs. Care plans were developed to guide staff on how to support people, and these were reviewed regularly, with risk assessments updated when required.

At the time of our visit, handovers between shifts were mainly focused on staff allocation. Following our visit, the registered manager told us they were using handovers more effectively to highlight people’s individual needs and any changes in their care. The registered manager also advised they were reviewing handover documentation to ensure information about people was communicated more clearly between staff.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including taking into account what was important to them.

People’s weight was generally stable. Where people were underweight, dietitian advice had been sought and care plans included guidance to increase calorie intake. However, it was not always evident that guidance within care plans, such as offering high-calorie drinks, was consistently followed. While we observed snacks being offered during the day, these were mainly limited to biscuits.

Some people raised concerns about the lack of variety in the menu. One person told us, “The food is lovely. Boring, but lovely!” However, another person said, “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.”

Some people also raised concerns about portion sizes. We observed that many meals were served on small plates. One relative told us, “I think the plates of food are a bit small. They aren’t much bigger than a side plate. I take [family member] snacks in. [Family member] says they are hungry at night and have been hiding food from their dinner, so they have something to eat later.” However, another relative described a positive experience, saying, “[Family member] eats things they never would have before. From eating next to nothing at home, [family member] now eats very well and staff have really built them back up.”

A number of people required support to eat. We observed that there were not always enough staff available to provide this support in a timely way with some people having to wait. We also observed some positive examples where staff were patient and provided appropriate support.

We observed some good examples of staff applying evidence-based practice. This included the introduction of a falls prevention programme and support for people with specific mobility needs, such as those living with Parkinson’s disease.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us there was a good sense of teamwork within the service. One staff member commented, “I like it here. It’s a nice little home, and we have a good team. There isn't any cliques and we work well and everyone works together.”

The provider had suitable policies in place for supporting people when they moved between services and staff supported people to access any appointments when needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and aimed to reduce their future need for care and support.

The registered manager had oversight of people’s health needs and incidents, and incidents such as falls were appropriately escalated. Several people living at the home were a high falls risk and at the time our assessment the home was piloting a falls prevention programme with a local university.

Staff worked closely with health professionals, had regular contact with the local doctor’s surgery who completed weekly visits to the home, and the district nurse team. Referrals were made to specialist services where additional support and assessment was needed.

People fed back some concerns about the variety of food offered and further work was needed to ensure people consistently had access to a varied and balanced diet.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement. They aimed to ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people using the service.

People and their families shared some positive feedback about outcomes. One person told us, “Two years ago, I couldn’t do anything, but now I shower myself.” A relative said, “It was difficult at first, but they have worked really hard to help [family member] settle, and the staff are very good indeed.”

The registered manager had systems in place to oversee people’s needs, including those at risk of weight loss, people at high risk of falls, and those with wounds. Risk assessments and care plans were in place and were generally updated when people’s needs changed. However, further improvements were needed to ensure consistency across records and to confirm that records clearly demonstrated care was being delivered in line with assessed needs.

The provider did not always ensure that people were informed about their rights in relation to consent, and these rights were not consistently respected when care and treatment were delivered.

Processes were in place to record formal consent. However, some people told us staff did not always take the time to gain consent before providing support. We also observed this during the inspection.

Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decision-making processes were followed, involving relevant people. The registered manager had recently undertaken work to improve staff knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.