Bridgemead

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a dedicated initial assessment form which was completed before people started living in the service. Information was gathered from people, relatives and professionals during the assessment. The provider completed a ‘spiritual assessment’ before people joined the service. This was to ensure people had all the available information on the providers Christian values. Staff said they received information about people when they came to the home.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement in care planning. Whilst some people told us they had ongoing and regular involvement, other people told us they had not. Leaders told us care reviews had been introduced as a regular occurrence in the service as they had identified people had not been involved in the planning process prior to their ownership.

There was a key worker system in place, so people, relatives and partners had a dedicated staff member to contact.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Overall, people and their relatives commented negatively about the quality and quantity of food available. For example, comments included, “The quality is down. The menu has reduced, the food is not as good as it used to be,” and “[Person] ordered a jacket potato with salad the other day and got three lettuce leaves.” Staff we spoke with also told us people had continued to raise concerns about the food choices, quantity of food and lack of snacks available.

We saw the menus on offer and found the level of detail lacking. For example, lunch menus had information about the main dish such as cod in parsley sauce, but it did not include what vegetables were being served. Staff said, they did not include the vegetables on the menu as they were not always sure what vegetables would be delivered, but people were always given 2 options on the day.

One of the teatime options available was ‘soup of the day’, however it did not stipulate what the soup of the day was so people could plan their meals in advance. Leaders told us they had engaged with people about the meals on offer and the menus were changed in July 2025. They said people had not raised any concerns and based on the assessment feedback they would re-engage with people.

However, people were complimentary about the chef and the Sunday roast on offer.

Care plans were regularly reviewed by leaders and key workers. The service had evidence-based information embedded into their care planning system. For example, we saw evidence of peoples diagnosed conditions in their care plans with guidance for staff to follow in line with national evidence-based guidance.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs had been assessed and documented. People’s weight was monitored, and concerns were escalated to professionals.

Information about people’s allergies and food requirements were displayed in the kitchen area for staff to follow.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us they had access to a variety of different external services. We saw regular communication with partners on behalf of people to ensure their needs were met. Staff knew how to escalate concerns and there were nurses on site who escalated any concerns to the GP.

Partners did not raise any concerns about the way the service worked with them. There were daily meetings between management and staff to discuss people’s needs.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed regarding how the service supported healthier lifestyles. People mainly commented on the lack of meaningful activities in line with their preferences. We saw the activities schedule and found some activities were repetitive. For example, on a Saturday the same activities were listed throughout the day. Leaders stated activities included initiatives such as a live-streamed bird cam. Leaders confirmed a new activities co-ordinator had been recruited and the priority was to engage with people about their preferences. Leaders talked about their ‘Hummingbird’ initiative where a staff member completed one-to-one activities in people’s rooms with them.

People and staff also commented about the lack of fresh fruit and snacks available throughout the day. People said these were previously available and changes had impacted on relative’s finances because they had to bring in more snacks. Leaders stated snacks remained available, but changes were made due to significant food waste. Leaders also told us toast and biscuits were available in various locations in the service and fresh fruit was available and kept in the kitchen area. People had been notified of this change and the service ensured us they would communicate this with people again.

We saw, referrals had been made to external professionals such as occupational therapists and physiotherapists where required.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

We identified a lack of monitoring for 1 person’s bowel monitoring and saw gaps in charts for 7 days during October 2025. We also saw 1 person’s care plan state they needed daily food monitoring, but we saw missing entries on 2 days during October 2025.

Although we saw no harm had come to people through the lack of monitoring, this meant there was a potential risk that changes in people’s needs could be missed and not responded to promptly.

However, there were processes to support people on modified diets, and we identified people were being monitored with their fluid intake to prevent the risk of dehydration.

People’s blood pressure, weight and fluid monitoring was being completed. A ‘Waterlow’ clinical scoring tool to assess the risk of pressure wounds for people was in place.

External partners were involved in people’s care and outcomes. The service had an onsite nurse available to meet people’s nursing needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed when required. People told us staff asked for their consent when they supported them. Staff and leaders understood their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act and when to apply for Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLs).

Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, relatives and professionals had been involved in the best interest decision making process.

Consent preferences were clearly documented in people’s care plans.