• Care Home
  • Care home

Bowerfield House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

1 Broadwood Close, Disley, Stockport, Greater Manchester, SK12 2NJ (01663) 721465

Provided and run by:
Bowerfield House Limited

Report from 26 April 2024 assessment

On this page

Caring

Good

Updated 3 December 2024

People felt staff were kind and caring. We observed generally positive interactions and that staff knew people. People’s choices were generally promoted and respected by staff. People and families who were new to the service told us that staff had made them feel welcome.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Kindness, compassion and dignity

Score: 3

People felt well treated and were generally happy with the support they received. People felt their individual needs were met and they had the care they needed in the way they wanted.

Staff told us they all worked well together and supported each other. Staff told us they felt listened to by the new managers and felt able to discuss concerns or ideas with them. The provider told us they had undertaken a lot of work to develop and established a skilled team.

Partner agency spoke positively of the staff team who they told us were kind and responsive.

We observed that whilst staff were kind and knew people, care was not always delivered that was as personalised as needed, for example checks on people were task led.

Treating people as individuals

Score: 3

People felt well treated and were generally happy with the support they received. People felt their individual needs were met and they had the care they needed in the way they wanted.

Staff told us they had good understanding of people’s needs and how these should be met. Staff told us they were familiar with people’s care plans although it was not clear that all staff had fully read these care plans.

We observed that whilst staff were kind and knew people, care was not always delivered that was as personalised as needed, such as checks on people were task lead.

Care plans were in place and in most cases contained a lot of information about people and their likes and specific needs. We found instances where the information available within care plans had not been personalised and was identical to other people’s care plans, we saw staff had referenced people in the wrong pronouns or care plans contained conflicting information. The conflicting information and shortfalls in care plans had not been identified through provider’s own review and audits. This was discussed with the manager and the provider further during the inspection as an area of development.

Independence, choice and control

Score: 3

People told us they felt their independence was respected and they had choice in how they wanted to be supported. One person told us, “I feel safe enough here and staff are caring. Nothing has been too much trouble for them.”

Staff generally understood the importance of encouraging people to remain independent and promoting choice, although this was not always evident in their practice. Staff understood people’s needs, and most staff knew people well.

We observed that people were generally supported with choice and their decisions were respected. Staff were able to anticipate people’s needs but in doing so did not always expressly promote choice. For example, when getting ready for meals people were not always asked where they wanted to sit, if they wanted to wash their hands or if they wanted to use a clothes protector.

Care plans detailed people’s preferences. However, it was not always evident how people and their families had been involved in developing care plans or participating in reviews. The provider told us the ‘resident of the day’ review allowed families to feedback on these aspects of care provision.

Responding to people’s immediate needs

Score: 3

People told us staff were generally readily available to support them and overall people and families were happy with the care provided. Some relatives did note occasions where staff could have been more proactive in how they supported people with personal care.

Staff told us they felt able to respond to people and their needs quickly. Any feedback given by families or other stakeholders was quickly acted upon to ensure people were comfortable and safe.

We observed staff generally attended to people’s needs quickly. Staff were mostly present in communal areas, although it was not always clear how oversight of people who were very mobile was being maintained. Many people had been assessed as not able to use a call bell to summon assistance so staff completed routine checks on their wellbeing.

Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Score: 3

Staff told us they felt well supported by the provider and manager. Staff felt the service was responsive when things had gone wrong and helped them to access additional training or support where this was needed.

The provider had numerous processes to promote staff wellbeing including access to a variety of benefits and support.