You are here

The Bancroft Residential Home Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The Bancroft Residential Home Limited (‘The Bancroft’) is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 32 people, including older people and people living with dementia.

We inspected the service on 21 and 23 November 2017. The first day of our inspection was unannounced. On the first day of our inspection there were 30 people living in the home.

There were two registered managers who shared responsibility for the running of the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers (the ‘provider’) 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.

In July 2016 we conducted our first comprehensive inspection of the home and rated it as Requires Improvement. On this inspection we were pleased to find the provider had taken action to address the shortfalls identified at our last inspection and the rating is now Good.

Staff worked well together in a mutually supportive way and communicated effectively, internally and externally. Training and supervision systems were in place to provide staff with the knowledge and skills they required to meet people’s needs effectively. There were usually sufficient staff to meet people’s care and support needs without rushing, although the registered managers agreed to give this further review in the light of some feedback we received. Staff provided end of life care in a sensitive and person-centred way.

Staff were kind and attentive in their approach. People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their individual needs and preferences. The physical environment and facilities in the home reflected people’s requirements. People were provided with physical and mental stimulation appropriate to their needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely and staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required. Systems were in place to ensure effective infection prevention and control.

The registered managers were well known to, and respected by, everyone connected to the service. They had taken action to address the areas for improvement identified at our last inspection. A range of audits was in place to monitor the quality and safety of service provision. People’s individual risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm. There was evidence of organisational learning from significant incidents and events. Formal complaints were rare and any informal concerns were handled effectively.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection the provider had been granted DoLS authorisations for seven people living in the care home and was waiting for a further 10 applications to be assessed by the local authority. Staff understood the principles of the MCA and demonstrated their awareness of the need to obtain consent before providing care or support to people. Decisions that senior staff had been made as being in people’s best interests were documented correctly.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The service was safe.

There were usually sufficient staff to meet people’s care and support needs.

New staff were recruited safely.

People’s risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs.

Effective infection prevention and control systems were in place.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

There was evidence of organisational learning from significant incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff understood how to support people who lacked the capacity to make some decisions for themselves.

The provider maintained a record of staff training requirements and arranged a variety of courses to meet their needs.

Staff were provided with effective supervision and support.

Staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they needed.

People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their needs and preferences.

The physical environment and facilities in the care home reflected people’s requirements.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring in their approach.

Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and to exercise choice and control over their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People were provided with physical and mental stimulation appropriate to their needs.

People’s individual care plans were well-organised and kept under regular review by senior staff.

Staff provided compassionate care for people at the end of their life.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and were confident that the provider would respond effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 January 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had taken action to address the areas for improvement identified at our last inspection.

The registered managers were well known to everyone connected to the service.

A range of auditing and monitoring systems was in place to monitor the quality of service provision.

Staff worked together in a friendly and supportive way.

Internal and external communication systems were effective.