CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bankfield Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that safeguarding systems, medicines management, risk assessments, staffing arrangements and infection control were effective. They identified a privacy issue because personal information on emergency evacuation plans could be seen outside people's bedrooms.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, action plans, regular staff training, good communication with relatives and a positive culture.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with a privacy issue about emergency evacuation information.
The home was rated Good overall. The inspection visit took place on 21 April 2021 and was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with nine relatives and five staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely, staff had suitable training, risks were assessed, and infection control arrangements were in place. Relatives said people were safe and that there appeared to be enough staff.
The home was also rated Good for being well-led. Inspectors found effective audits, regular staff training, good communication with relatives and a positive culture. They noted that personal emergency evacuation plans were displayed outside bedroom doors, with personal information visible to people passing by, and the manager said this would be addressed.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 2 February 2018.
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely and records and protocols were in place to support safe administration.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, personal protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and the home's ability to manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Staffing levels were calculated and rotas reflected those calculations. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“The provider had a system in place to calculate safe staffing levels and rotas reflected that staffing was organised in accordance with this calculation.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they were kept informed about their relative's wellbeing and about changes affecting the home.
“Communication has been very good, they sometimes ring me twice a week. "I have been kept up to date".” from the report
Effective oversight
The manager and provider used audits and action plans to monitor and improve the service.
“The registered manager and the provider completed regular audits to monitor and improve the quality of service delivery.” from the report
Personal information on evacuation plans
minorPersonal emergency evacuation plans were displayed outside bedroom doors. This meant personal information could be seen by people passing the room, and the manager said it would be addressed.
“However, PEEPs were located on the outside of people's bedroom doors and included personal information visible to people passing the room.” from the report
- 01Have personal emergency evacuation plans been moved or changed so that private information cannot be seen by people passing bedroom doors?
- 02How are staffing levels calculated, and what happens if the planned number of staff is not available?
- 03How will you keep my relative and our family informed about their wellbeing and changes to visiting arrangements?
- 04How do you check that medicines, including creams and as-required medicines, are given as prescribed?
- 05What were the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive after the focused inspection, and when were they last fully assessed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Bankfield Manor Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, with some concerns about staffing at busy times, cleaning and consent decisions.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 January 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, visitors and a district nurse. They reviewed care plans, audits, medicines records, maintenance records and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and supported, people were treated kindly, care plans were up to date and complaints were handled appropriately.
There were some shortfalls. At busy times, staff were also preparing food, which affected their availability. Some areas needed more thorough cleaning. Inspectors also found that people were not always clearly involved in care plan reviews or best-interest decisions. The home had improved since December 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached a consent regulation.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, independence, faith and personal choices.
“Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Stock checks, including controlled drugs, matched the records.
“We found medicines were managed safely within the home.” from the report
Good care records
The care plans inspectors checked reflected people's current needs and were kept up to date.
“Care records reflected people's current needs and were accurate and up to date.” from the report
Activities and choices
People could choose how to spend their time and had access to activities, equipment and outside entertainers.
“We observed a high level of participation in activities during our inspection.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits and action plans to identify and address issues.
“Quality assurance systems were effective in assessing, monitoring and improving the quality of the service” from the report
Staff availability at mealtimes
needs fixingOne care worker helped prepare the evening meal, leaving fewer staff available. Some people waited a long time before the meal was served.
“This meant one member of staff was not available to assist people during this time.” from the report
Cleaning standards
minorThe home was generally clean, but inspectors found a stained mattress and a dirty chair. These were dealt with immediately after the issue was raised.
“We found the environment to be generally clean and tidy but did alert the provider to some areas where more thorough cleaning was needed.” from the report
Involvement in decisions
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions involved family members when there was no clear evidence that this was the person's wish.
“However we were concerned not all best interest decisions had involved appropriate individuals.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingCare plans were reviewed and up to date, but records did not clearly show that people or appropriate others had been involved in every review.
“There was little evidence to show people or appropriate others were involved in the review process.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are available during the evening meal, and what happens when one worker is preparing food?
- 02How do you check that mattresses, chairs and other areas are cleaned promptly when they become stained or dirty?
- 03How will you make sure best-interest decisions reflect the person's wishes and involve the right people?
- 04How do you record a person's involvement in care plan reviews?
- 05What further detail do you now include when analysing accidents, falls and near misses?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2018 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 Bankfield Manor Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
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 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Calderdale
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.