Bridge House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

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 changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a strong emphasis on making the home feel like a home for people and provide reassurances for their relatives. Staff told us they enjoyed working at Bridge House Care Home and had noticed improvements. Staff felt they would confidently recommend this home to others. The registered manager told us they had worked closely to build trusting relationships with other stakeholders and professionals.

There was a range of policies and procedures within the home promote good practice. There were processes in place so lessons were learnt and action was taken to improve the home when needed. The provider regularly sought feedback aiming to improve the home further. A copy of the current CQC rating was on display for all to see.

There was processes in place to try and improve the home. The nominated individual had a strong emphasis on making improvements and ensuring the staff team took prompt action to address any issues or concerns. Processes were in place to recognise performance and to celebrate staff achievements, the home had monthly staff recognition awards.

Staff told us they felt supported at the home and the management team were approachable. Staff enjoyed their roles and felt there was a good culture within the home. Staff gave positive feedback about the overall leadership. The registered manager also told us they felt supported by the nominated individual. We observed managers at all levels to be visible and involved within the home.

The home had a whilst-blowing policy in place. Staff had access to this policy and had good knowledge of how they would speak up or raise concerns.

No concerns were raised in relation to staff or the registered manager speaking up if they had any concerns.

Processes were in place to ensure the home was inclusive and there was a fair culture. Recruitment processes supported fair employment opportunities.

Staff raised no concerns in relation to quality and diversity. Staff felt supported by each other as a team and spoke positively about the support they received.

There were clear systems and processes in place to monitor performance and deliver improvements. Staff had recently been appointed champion roles who would help to improve different aspects of care and the home. There were regular review meetings between the managers, actions were set and closely monitored until completion. During the assessment, we found accidents and incidents were being logged and reported to the local authority where applicable, however not all incidents that should have been reported to CQC were reported. The nominated individual felt this was an oversight issue. They took immediate action to address this and submitted relevant notifications.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff spoke highly about the support they received from senior staff. The registered manager had good knowledge of the home and the people. The registered manager and nominated individual were working together on improving their systems and how information was being logged. We were also informed that an external company was going to be supporting them to undertake a review of the full home, this would give them direction about areas which needed improvement.

The home worked in partnership with other services. These included healthcare services as well as local community resources. Referrals were made in a timely manner which allowed continuity of care. Advice was sought and followed up by the staff team.

We received positive feedback about the staff team from people and relatives. One person told us, “Everyone here is very respectful, and the [staff] are very good indeed”. Everyone we spoke with said that there is an open-door policy and they felt they could speak with any member of staff if they needed to.

Staff told us that a range of health and social care professionals were involved in supporting people.

Partners confirmed the home worked in partnership. We received positive feedback from partners. The told us they worked closely together to ensure people’s needs were met. One visiting professional told us, “I have undertaken a project around nutrition with the registered manager, this had a great outcome and was only possible with the help of the team at Bridge House.”

Processes were in place to ensure continuous learning for the home and staff development. The management team were proactive in using information from audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding alerts to improve the home. The managers worked with staff to understand how things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions.

Staff completed ongoing training to support them in their role and ensure a consistent approach to care and support. Staff had regular supervisions and opportunities to discuss learning.