Gosberton Bank House care home deemed ‘inadequate’ after surprise visit


A Gosberton care home has been labelled inadequate after a surprise visit by the Quality Care Commission in October.

Of the five criteria homes are judged on, Bank House Care Home, on Gosberton Bank, was found to be inadequate on ‘safe’, ‘responsive’, ‘effective’ and ‘well-led’.

The home was found to be ‘requires improvement’ on its quality of caring.

The Commission is now making further checks at the home before deciding what action to take.

The home had 12 residents at the time of the unannounced visit on October 21, which followed previous visits on April 13 and September 2014.

The care provided is mainly for older people, some of whom experience memory loss and have needs associated with dementia.

A report says that previous inspections found the provider was failing to ensure care was planned and delivered to meet individual needs.

They had failed to maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene and did not have appropriate arrangements for the management of medicines.

The provider did not ensure staff were appropriately trained and supervised and did not have effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service.

The provider was not aware of its responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the environment had not been maintained to an acceptable standard.

At the most recent visit inspectors found the provider had made improvements in the cleanliness of the home and the number of staff available to provide care to people.

Also, the induction provided to new staff helped them provide safe care for people. However, there was little improvement in the other areas.

They found the home had not complied with laws which protect people when they were unable to make decisions for themselves.

It had not ensured people’s human rights were protected. Care plans did not record if people were able to make decisions for themselves.

Some medicines could not be accounted for and there were numerous inaccuracies between records and medicines prescribed.

Risks to people had been identified in their care plans. However, care was not always delivered in line with the care plans. Therefore, people were not fully protected.

Staff were unable to demonstrate competencies in key areas and people’s malnutrition risk was not always calculated accurately.

However, there has been some improvements to the environment with dementia-friendly signage in place and minor improvements to the fixtures. But people were still living in rooms where the standard of decoration and furniture was not of an acceptable quality and did not support people’s well-being.

Staff were individually caring to people and ensured people’s dignity was maintained.

Staff were aware of how people communicated their care needs.

However, the provider and staff did not understand how people living with a dementia communicated their emotional needs.