You are here

Archived: Bank House Care Home

Reports


Inspection carried out on 29 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service responsive to people's needs?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service and their relatives, speaking with the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

The care records we looked at contained enough information to show how people were to be safely supported and cared for.

The care records showed that people's health was regularly assessed and monitored to ensure their health and welfare was protected.

The staff we spoke with showed they had a very good understanding of the needs of the people they were looking after.

People told us they felt safe and the staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to help ensure the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and complaints.

Is the service caring?

People looked relaxed and had a friendly rapport with the staff. The people we spoke with were complimentary about the care provided. We were told, “I am happy with the care. They look after me very well and it is all very good” and “I like it here, it’s all very good”.

People's care records showed that their preferences, likes and dislikes had been clearly documented and their care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service effective?

People were assessed by a senior member of staff from the home before they were admitted to ensure their individual needs could be met.

We visited one person in their bedroom to see how they were being looked after. They looked clean, comfortable and well cared for. They had pressure relieving equipment in place to aid comfort and help in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

To ensure that safe and effective care was provided, staff updated their skills and knowledge with regular training and updates.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

Information in the care records showed the staff at the home involved other health and social care professionals in the care and support of the people who used the service.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that information was passed on when a person was transferred to another service, such as a hospital.

The provider had a clear procedure in place with regards to responding to any complaints and concerns made.

Is the service well led?

We were made aware there had been no registered manager at the home since January 2014 and that the present manager had made an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

There were a number of quality assurance systems in place to ensure people were cared for safely. Feedback was sought from people by means of annual questionnaires that asked for their views on how they felt they were being cared for, and if the facilities at the home were to their satisfaction.

Meetings were held regularly for staff, people who used the service and their relatives. These meetings gave people the opportunity to be kept informed of any developments within the service, and also to express their views, about the service and facilities provided.

Inspection carried out on 14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Bank House Care Home provided care for up to 43 people, some with dementia or needing end of life care. 37 beds were occupied at the time of our inspection.

The named registered manager had left some months prior and a new manager had recently been recruited but was not yet registered. Staff told us that the role had been vacant for some time.

The home had garden areas and parking. Accommodation was provided over two floors. There was a passenger lift and a wheelchair stair lift where the upper floor level changed. There was a main lounge, a quiet lounge and a conservatory area where people could sit. In the quiet lounge, there were two computers with internet access which people could use to contact their families via Skype, with support from staff if necessary. A hairdresser visited weekly.

Some bedrooms were en suite. The rooms we saw were personalised with items belonging to the individuals.

People were sitting in armchairs in the main lounge area and the conservatory area. Some were cared for in their rooms.

Although the staff responded to people, we observed little spontaneous interaction between staff and the people using the service during our visit, even when providing assistance.

Leaflets on dementia and Alzheimer's, eating well, Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCA) and planning future care were displayed in the foyer. The complaints process was displayed and there was a board showing photographs of staff with their names and roles.

Inspection carried out on 1 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people using the service and with four relatives. People using the service told us they were involved in decision making about their care and treatment. They also told us that they had a choice in how they spent their day.

Comments made were; "I get up and go to bed when I want". “I like to sit here, see what is going on and read my paper”. “Yes we have a choice at mealtimes as well”. “They tell me what I am supposed to do to keep well”.

People’s care records contained detailed information to show how they were to be supported and cared for. People told us they were well looked after. They told us; “I need to say it as it is, they are all really good”. “I can’t fault it”. “All very good”. “Champion”.

The medication system was safe and people told us they received their medicines when they needed them.

Regular monitoring of the services and facilities provided was in place to help protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care.