Bridgemead

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We received positive comments about staff from people. Comments included, “The staff are very good, kind care and definitely respectful,” and “I’m supported well by my key worker, the staff are marvellous.”

We observed several interactions between staff and people which showed kindness and compassion. For example, at lunch time we observed a staff member supporting someone with their food and they talked to the person and always asked them if they were ready for more food.

Partners said they had seen staff being kind and compassionate with people when they visited the service.

However, we observed body maps displayed on some people’s room walls to guide staff on where to apply creams. Leaders were not aware of the signs in people’s rooms and agreed to speak with people about their preferences for storing this information.

The provider treated people as individuals and took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans contained details about their life histories, personal preferences and individual needs. For example, 1 care plan stated, “I like it when people sing,” and “I have good hearing, but words may need repeating if I’m tired.”

Staff were aware of people’s preferences, for example, one person requested not to be disturbed after a certain time of the night and staff knew this. One person said, “The staff like him and know him well.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, and people told us they did not always have choice over their care and treatment.

Some people and their relatives said that choice and control over well-being needs was not always upheld. For example, this related to preferences such as smoking, drinking alcohol and participating in activities like bingo. One relative told us, “Bingo was stopped because they saw it as gambling.” One staff member told us, “We used to have bingo, they have stopped it because they see it as gambling, I don’t think it was explained to people properly.” The provider confirmed people were allowed to smoke outside of the building, and residents could have alcohol in their rooms where risk assessments were completed. Bingo had been stopped but they had recruited an activities co-ordinator to engage with people about different activities. Leaders told us the new activities co-ordinator would broaden the range of activities along with continuing with activities people enjoyed.

There was information in people’s care plans about maintaining independence. For example, 1 care plan for a person with a diagnosed health conditions stated, “cutlery to be arranged in hand before eating.” Staff understood how to encourage independence and respected people’s right to independence. For example, 1 staff member told us, “[Person] is the most independent, they don’t require any care we offer, they self-wash and dress. Most days they go out for a walk independently.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff knew people and their needs well. On the 2 days we assessed the service we observed staff responding to people’s needs in a timely manner. We observed call alarm bells were being responded to quickly. People commented, “Oh yes, the staff respond well. They come if [Person] calls, no problem.”

However, some people said they may have to wait longer at the weekends for staff to respond. One comment included, “[Person] has a longer wait than she would like and there’s no urgency at weekends.” Staff said they had enough time to respond to people’s immediate needs.

The provider did not always promote the well-being of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mixed feedback from staff about their well-being. Some staff told us their well-being was looked after by the provider, but others told us it was not. People and relatives expressed concern that staff morale could impact care in the future and were worried about long-serving staff leaving. One person commented, “I can’t complain, care staff are marvellous, but I can sense the stress. Carers work hard, we are like family, it’s important that the top brass take the time to talk to carers and get to know them.” Another person commented, “Staff have been anxious for their jobs and all the changes that have happened. I am fond of my carers I don’t want them to be unhappy or leave.” Despite these concerns, people confirmed their care and support needs continued to be met.

However, we saw there was well-being initiatives in place including access to a bespoke well-being package and policies. The provider said they had arranged a free Christmas meal at a venue of staff choice. We saw only 2 staff members had left the service for career progression and there was limited use of agency staff.

Leaders acknowledged challenges with staff adapting to the new provider. They were considering further strategies to bring staff teams together and maintain morale to ensure people living in the service were not impacted.