Rated Care Homes

Bankfield House Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 6 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 15 of 56

    rated care homes in Stockport are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Bankfield House Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 30 beds, Stockport

Rated Requires improvement in August 2026, down from Good.

Bankfield House Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Silverdale (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Polebank Hall Residential Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Silverdale Good, 0.8 miles away
  2. G
  3. RI
    Berrycroft Manor Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  4. G
    Appleton Lodge Good, 1.1 miles away
  5. G
    Appleton Manor Good, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Stockport

See all care homes in Bredbury

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 August 2026 (assessment visit 7 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 2 June to 17 June 2026

Bankfield House is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care to 30 people aged 65 years and over with a variety of conditions at the time of our visits. Some people at the home were living with dementia. The home is registered to provide care for up to 30 people over 2 floors in one building.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective Good
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

At our last inspection, we found five breaches of regulation. At this assessment, we found that some improvements had been made. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations relating to safeguarding and people’s nutrition and hydration. However, there were continued breaches of three regulations relating to the delivery of person-centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance within the service. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this assessment.

Staff did not always provide care in a way that was safe, particularly for people who required support with moving and handling. While staff understood people’s needs, care records were not always accurate or consistent with guidance on how care should be provided. Improvements in relation to medicines records were needed. There were some shortfalls in recruitment processes; however, these were addressed immediately by the registered manager. There were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs, and not all staff had completed training relevant to their role. Appropriate systems were in place to safeguard people, and learning from incidents had been embedded.

Assessments and care plans were in place and were reviewed regularly. Staff worked together to meet people’s needs and sought support from healthcare professionals when required. However, further work was needed to ensure that consent to care was consistently obtained before support was provided.

Care was not always provided in a way that met people’s needs. For example, we observed that people did not always receive sufficient reassurance when they became distressed during moving and handling. It was not always clear that care plans were being followed, for example in relation to repositioning to protect skin integrity or providing additional support for people at risk of weight loss. Further consideration was needed to ensure people experienced dignified end-of-life care, particularly those living in shared rooms.

The registered manager had introduced a range of systems for oversight and governance. While some improvements were noted, these systems were not always used effectively. For example, care plan audits had been completed but had not identified inconsistencies or inaccuracies in records or checked whether care plans were followed through review of daily records. Not all relevant information known by staff about people’s needs was reflected in care plans. Medicines audits were completed; however, these were generic and lacked sufficient detail to identify the concerns we found. The registered manager was open to feedback and responded promptly to address concerns.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and good governance.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people received personalised plans of care.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  3. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 4 August 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Karen Harrison
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

12 inspection reports, latest 5 May 2021. Latest assessment published 4 August 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
05239489 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Bankfield House Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Bankfield House Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Bankfield House Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 30 beds at Bankfield House Care Home.
When was Bankfield House Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Bankfield House Care Home was published on 4 August 2026.
Who runs Bankfield House Care Home?
Bankfield House Care Home is run by Freshfield Care Limited.
What is Bankfield House Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 4 August 2026.

Contact

Address
Bankfield Road, Woodley, Stockport, SK6 1RQ Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Silverdale (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Polebank Hall Residential Care Home (Good, 0.8 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Silverdale Good, 0.8 miles away
  2. G
  3. RI
    Berrycroft Manor Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  4. G
    Appleton Lodge Good, 1.1 miles away
  5. G
    Appleton Manor Good, 1.1 miles away

See all care homes in Stockport

See all care homes in Bredbury