CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bank Hall Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely and the home was clean, although some minor issues were found and addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, drink, health care and their individual needs. Staff had training and supervision, and the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says the rating from the previous inspection was used for the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report says the rating from the previous inspection was used for the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider carried out audits and checks, used action plans and supported staff to raise concerns and learn from incidents. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about how the home was managed.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Bank Hall Care Centre rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, with minor medicines, risk assessment and recruitment record issues fixed or addressed.
Inspectors visited on 25 and 26 October 2022. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, toured the home and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk management, clean premises, appropriate infection control, good support with food and healthcare, and effective management checks.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about medicines, staffing, cleanliness, records, food and training. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Some minor shortfalls were found and addressed. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall Good rating.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Relatives had no safety concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home, and they were happy with the service provided.” from the report
Clean and infection-aware
Inspectors found a good standard of cleanliness throughout the home, including the kitchen, and were assured about infection prevention arrangements.
“All areas of the home had a good standard of cleanliness including the kitchen.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People were offered meal choices made from fresh ingredients. Their weight and nutritional intake were monitored according to their assessed risks.
“We noted people were offered a choice of meals, which were prepared daily from fresh ingredients.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
Inspectors saw sensitive interactions. Staff understood people's needs, preferences and choices.
“People were supported in a sensitive and kind manner.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used audits, checks, meetings and action plans to monitor quality and make improvements.
“The provider had established effective systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for prescribed creams and medicines given when needed were not always readily available to staff. The manager addressed this during the inspection, and power packs were bought after an electronic medicines device ran out of power.
“directions for the application of prescribed creams and protocols for the administration of medicines prescribed 'as necessary', were not always readily accessible to staff.” from the report
Risk assessment records
minorSome risk assessments did not fully reflect people's needs at first. These minor shortfalls were addressed during the inspection.
“We noted minor shortfalls in the risk assessments were addressed during the inspection, to ensure they were fully reflective of people's needs.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorInspectors found minor gaps in recruitment documentation and regulatory checks. The manager later confirmed these issues had been resolved.
“we found minor shortfalls in the documentation and regulatory checks.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure instructions for prescribed creams and 'as necessary' medicines are always available to staff?
- 02What backup arrangements are now in place if the electronic medicines device loses power?
- 03How do you check that each person's risk assessment fully reflects their current needs?
- 04Can you show how recruitment documentation and regulatory checks are completed for every new staff member?
- 05What work remains in the refurbishment programme, including the planned dementia-related adaptations in Scarlett House?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns and covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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, June 2021
Bank Hall Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed well and the home was well-led.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 May 2021. The inspector looked only at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, staff and managers, checked care, medicine and recruitment records, and looked around the home.
Inspectors found people felt safe and comfortable. Staffing was sufficient, medicines were given safely and on time, risks were assessed, and the home was clean. Infection control arrangements, including the use of protective equipment, were also judged safe.
The home had systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and listening to people's views. The overall rating was Good. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the last comprehensive inspection, while Well-led remained Good.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Inspectors found the records they checked were complete and up to date.
“All records seen were complete and up to date.” from the report
Staffing and risk checks
The home used a dependency tool to match staffing to people's changing needs. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and reviewed.
“This enabled the manager to monitor staffing levels in line with fluctuating needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found staff using protective equipment safely and saw suitable arrangements for testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
“All staff were observed to be wearing appropriate PPE during our visit.” from the report
Quality oversight
Managers carried out checks across the service and used action plans when they found shortfalls. Staff were also able to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
“The management team carried out a number of audits and checks covering all aspects of the service.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection. A manager had recently started and intended to apply for registration.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now applied for, or obtained, CQC registration?
- 02How do you currently check that staffing levels still match people's changing needs?
- 03How are medicine records checked to make sure they remain complete and up to date?
- 04How do people and their families give feedback, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 05How do you make sure infection control and protective equipment arrangements remain effective?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and earlier ratings for those areas were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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 Bank Hall Care Centre
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.