CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bankfield Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found appropriate risk assessments, safe medicine systems, safeguarding procedures and suitable equipment checks. They noted that staff rotas needed to show more clearly which staff were available for hands-on care and support.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with health appointments, nutrition, hydration and mobility. Staff training was substantially completed, with 95% of training completed, and staff received supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff sought consent, used different communication methods and knew people's preferences, routines and support needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. Activities were individualised, although inspectors said staffing rotas should show activity support so activities were not overlooked.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular checks of care, medicines, health and safety, equipment and staff performance. Inspectors identified a need for clearer recruitment records and for some relatives to receive up-to-date complaints information.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Bankfield Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some records and staffing information needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection over two days in August 2018. The first visit was unannounced. Inspectors observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, checked the building and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and recruitment records.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, accurate medicine records, trained staff and access to health services. People appeared relaxed and comfortable, and staff understood their individual needs and preferences.
The main shortfalls were that staff rotas did not clearly show who was available for hands-on support, and recruitment records did not always explain employment decisions. Families also needed clearer information about how to complain.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating in August 2015.
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable with staff and actively sought their company. Staff were patient, engaged well and used humour appropriately.
“Throughout our visit we saw that people living in the home actively sought the company of the staff providing support, they appeared relaxed and comfortable with the interactions and conversations.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines, communication methods and support needs. Staff showed that they knew the people living in the home well.
“Information in people's care files recorded their history, their individual likes, dislikes, hobbies and religious beliefs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines stored safely and records of administration to be accurate. Special arrangements for disguised medicines followed appropriate processes and involved best-interest decisions.
“We checked storage and the records relating to the administration of medication and found them to be accurate.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to enjoy regular individual activities inside and outside the home, including shopping, meals and local sporting events.
“Activities were individualised and regular, people were given one to one time doing activities they enjoyed outside of the home with key staff who knew them well.” from the report
Health support
People had access to doctors and other health professionals, and staff supported them to attend hospital appointments. Nutrition and hydration were monitored.
“People had access to healthcare services for example from the district nurse, optician, dietetic services, health screening and the GP and were supported to attend hospital appointments as required.” from the report
Staffing rotas
needs fixingStaffing levels were considered sufficient overall, but rotas did not clearly show which staff were available for hands-on care. Staff being moved to another service at short notice could also change activities at the last minute.
“Further information was required to demonstrate what the specific roles of the staff were on a particular days.” from the report
- 01How do you now record which staff are available for hands-on care on each shift?
- 02How do you prevent staff being moved to another service from disrupting planned activities?
- 03Can you show us the current complaints procedure and explain who families should contact?
- 04How are recruitment decisions recorded now, including the checks and reasons for offering employment?
- 05What action has been taken about the rear paving and the review of overnight staffing?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, with observations, discussions and checks of sampled records; the report was written in a shorter format because the overall rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Halton
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.