CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bancroft House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and monitored, staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns, and medicines were handled safely. There had been a period of staff shortages, but inspectors said people's needs were met safely and the home was then over-recruited.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed using recognised guidance, and staff received training, supervision and competency checks. Health, nutritional and communication needs were monitored and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, be more independent and communicate in ways that worked for them.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People and relatives were involved in planning support around individual needs, preferences and goals. People were supported with activities, education, relationships, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and positive culture, with quality checks and improvement plans. Professionals reported some recent delays in sharing information, although they said this had not affected people's support.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Bancroft House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with a small delay in sharing some information.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. It was an unannounced, planned inspection on 18 November 2021. One inspector spoke with staff, relatives and professionals, observed people being supported, and checked care, medicine, staffing and quality records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that staff understood their risks, including risks linked to behaviour and epilepsy. Medicines were managed safely. Staff supported people kindly, respected their choices and used pictures, signs and other methods to communicate with them.
People were involved in planning their support and were helped to pursue activities, education, relationships and community life. The home had systems for checking quality and improving care. Inspectors noted some recent delays in sharing information with professionals, but were told this had not affected people's support.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Good means inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Safe support
Staff understood people's risks and there were systems for reporting and reviewing incidents. Inspectors found that support had helped prevent or reduce behaviours that may challenge.
“There were several examples of how this monitoring and support approach had helped prevent and reduce people's behaviours that may challenge.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff listened to them. Staff supported people with compassion and respected their privacy, choices and independence.
“Staff supported people in a kind, compassionate and respectful way.” from the report
Accessible communication
Staff adapted communication to people's needs, including through pictures, symbols, signs and gestures. This helped people understand choices and information about their support.
“Staff communicated with people in ways that were most accessible to them, including non-verbal ways such as pictures, social stories, pictorial and symbol planners and hand signs and gestures.” from the report
Personalised goals
People were involved in planning their support and were helped to work towards individual goals, including greater independence and community activities.
“People were involved in planning and reviewing their care to help them receive person-centred support and achieve their life goals.” from the report
Open leadership
Inspectors found a positive culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to share ideas. Quality checks were used to identify issues and plan improvements.
“There was an open and positive culture that respected people's differences and treated everyone equally.” from the report
Information-sharing delays
minorSome professionals reported recent delays when information about people's support was requested. They said this had not affected people's support, but it is worth asking how the home prevents this happening again.
“Health and social care professionals gave some feedback there had been some recent delays in sharing information about people's support when requested, but this had not impacted on people's support as far as they were aware.” from the report
Earlier staff shortage
minorThe home had previously been short staffed and relied on bank staff and extra shifts. Inspectors said the home was over-recruited by the inspection to reduce the risk of future shortages.
“There had been a period where the service had been short staffed. The registered manager had provided bank staff and staff had worked extra shifts to cover the shortfall and ensure people's needs were met safely.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure information about a person's support is shared promptly with health and social care professionals?
- 02What staffing levels do you normally have, and how do you cover sickness, vacancies or unexpected absences?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred communication method, such as pictures, symbols, signs or easy-read information?
- 04How will my relative be involved in setting and reviewing personal goals, including activities, education and greater independence?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will we be kept informed about the response?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five CQC questions; the inspection visit was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2021 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 Bancroft House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 September 2020.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.