CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bamfield Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The service was found to be safe in the staffing area inspected. Inspectors found that staffing numbers and skills usually matched people's needs, but they did not review the whole Safe question.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Targeted inspection of Bamfield Lodge found staffing was usually sufficient and safe, but this visit was not rated.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 29 November 2022. Inspectors were checking concerns about staffing levels and whether these affected people's safety and care.
Inspectors reviewed staffing rotas, observed care and spoke with 10 people, six staff members and two relatives or friends. They found that staff numbers and skills usually matched people's needs. Call bells were answered promptly and staff knew people well.
Illness sometimes reduced staffing levels. The home monitored this and arranged cover when needed. Some staff said sickness was a problem, and one staff member felt there were not always enough staff.
The service was inspected but not rated at this visit. The previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2022, and it remained Good because this targeted inspection did not assess the whole service.
Staffing matched needs
Inspectors found that the number and mix of staff were suitable for the people living in the home. Staffing was reviewed when people's needs changed.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Prompt responses
People did not usually have to wait long for help. Inspectors saw that call bells were answered promptly.
“Call bells were answered promptly, and people did not have to wait long for staff attention.” from the report
Kind, personalised support
Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. Inspectors saw sensitive, personalised care and reassurance.
“During our inspection we saw staff spending time with people supporting them sensitively and giving them personalised care and reassurance.” from the report
Sickness affected staffing
needs fixingIllness sometimes reduced the number of staff available. Some staff felt sickness levels were high, although managers said they monitored absence and arranged cover when necessary.
“On a good, normal day, I feel yes, we have enough staff. It is just sickness is an issue” from the report
Not all staff felt staffing was enough
needs fixingMost staff were positive about staffing, but one staff member felt there were not always enough staff. Inspectors raised this with the registered manager.
“Another staff member felt there were not always enough staff.” from the report
- 01How do you cover shifts when staff are off sick?
- 02How often are bank or agency staff used, and how do you make sure they know people's needs?
- 03How do you decide whether staffing levels need to change when people's needs change?
- 04What action have you taken in response to staff concerns that there were not always enough staff?
- 05How long do increased staffing levels remain in place when they are introduced?
This was a targeted inspection of staffing and its impact on people's safety and care; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions, and the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Bamfield Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in staffing, risk monitoring and leadership since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Two inspectors spoke with the manager, deputy, regional director, six staff members and eight people living at the home. They observed care and checked care, recruitment, medicines, infection control and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, accurate food and fluid records, safe medicines practice and better monitoring of risks. People said they felt safe and that call bells were answered more promptly.
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Agency use had reduced, a bank staff team had been developed, admissions of people with complex needs had been reduced, and new management arrangements were in place.
This inspection did not assess Effective or Caring. Those ratings were not given in this report. The overall Good rating used the current findings for three areas and previous ratings for areas not inspected.
Improved staffing
Staffing levels had been increased and agency use had significantly reduced. The home had developed its own bank staff team, which supported continuity of care.
“The use of agency staff had significantly reduced since the last inspection.” from the report
Better risk monitoring
Inspectors found care records gave staff information about risks and what action to take. Food, fluid and positioning records checked during the inspection had no identified gaps.
“At this inspection the number of people in the whole home on food and fluid charts had reduced to four people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff had training and competency checks, and records were accurate.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were accurate and detailed when people's medicines were administered or refused.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay in touch with family and friends and to take part in activities suited to their interests and abilities.
“A range of activities was provided including crafts, dancing, singing and exercise classes.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The new manager, deputy and regional director had introduced audits and oversight. Staff described improvements and felt supported.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the home and the care provided to people.” from the report
Some staff questioned staffing levels
minorAlthough inspectors judged staffing to be safe overall, two staff members said there were not enough staff. This was fed back to the manager for continued monitoring.
“Two staff we spoke with felt the home did not have enough staff and we fed this back to the manager to support their monitoring of staffing levels.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The new manager planned to register.
“The home did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain safe on every floor, including when someone needs one-to-one care?
- 02What is the current position on the manager's CQC registration?
- 03How do you decide whether you can safely admit someone with complex needs?
- 04How will you keep checking food, fluid and positioning records for people at risk?
- 05What activities and communication support would be available for my relative's particular needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Bamfield Lodge
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.