CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bank House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with risks assessed and reviewed. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care needs were assessed and staff had suitable training. The rating improved from Requires Improvement because the home had made appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals, although it was not following specific NICE guidance for oral health.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to keep as much independence as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and based on people's preferences, interests and communication needs. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and welcoming culture, with effective checks on care quality and safety. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Bank House Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with oral health guidance not fully followed.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 26 February 2020. One inspector spoke with seven people, a visitor and 10 staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and records about how the home was managed.
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines practice and a clean environment. People received care that met their needs, had enough to eat and drink, and could access health professionals. Staff were described as kind, respectful and attentive, and people were involved in decisions about their care.
The home provided personalised care, activities and support to maintain relationships. Complaints were dealt with in a timely way, and the home had systems to monitor quality and safety. All five areas were rated Good. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four ratings remained Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely and without long waits. Staff had also been checked before starting work.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships with people and supported them in a gentle, polite and respectful way.
“We observed gentle, kind and thoughtful interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's interests, preferences and ways of communicating. Staff knew people well and delivered care at their preferred pace.
“People continued to receive personalised care and support.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had systems to monitor the quality and safety of care and took action when it found shortfalls.
“The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you support each person's oral health, and what has changed since inspectors said specific NICE guidance was not being followed?
- 02What facility upgrades were planned at the time of the inspection, and have they now been completed?
- 03How are people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations and referrals kept up to date?
- 04How do you make sure each person's care plan reflects their current preferences, communication needs and interests?
- 05How are residents, relatives and staff involved in decisions and changes at the home?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2020 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, September 2017
Bank House Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but improvements were needed to ensure any restrictions on people's freedom were lawful.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 July 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, management and relatives. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall, as it was at the previous inspection in April 2015. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines practices and access to health care.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. The main issue was that one person may have been restricted from leaving the home without the correct legal safeguards. Management began reviewing this during the inspection. Staff training, food and drink support and day-to-day care were otherwise described positively.
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people and safe recruitment checks. Medicines were stored securely, records were completed and staff had training and competency checks.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely.” from the report
Kind and personal care
People described staff as kind and attentive. Staff knew people's routines and provided reassurance when someone was distressed.
“People were cared for and supported by staff who were caring and attentive to their needs.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in their care planning and could express their preferences about daily routines. People were also able to raise concerns and take part in activities.
“People were involved in planning their care.” from the report
Approachable management
People and staff said management was approachable and supportive. The home used meetings, questionnaires and audits to identify improvements.
“People were encouraged to have a say in how the home was run.” from the report
Legal safeguards about leaving the home
needs fixingInspectors found that one person's ability to leave the home without staff support may have amounted to a restriction that was not yet properly authorised. Management started a review during the inspection.
“Practices needed to be reviewed to ensure that people were being deprived of their liberty lawfully.” from the report
Manager's refresher training
minorThe report said the registered manager needed refresher training to keep their care and management skills up to date.
“Further discussions with the registered manager identified there was a need to undertake refresher training to ensure their care and management skills were up to date.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the review of the person's capacity and the need for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard?
- 02How do you now check that any restriction on a person's movement is lawful and in their best interests?
- 03Has the registered manager completed the refresher training identified in the report?
- 04How do you make sure each person gets a choice of meals that reflects their preferences and dietary needs?
- 05How do you encourage people to take part in activities outside the home if they are interested?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, based on discussions with people, staff and relatives and reviews of three care records, medicines records and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2017 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 House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bank House Residential Care Home →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bank House Residential Care Home →
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 April 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Telford and Wrekin
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 £1,200 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.