Bridgemead

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

One person told us they were not supported to access outside areas to smoke. Leaders told us they did support people to smoke, but this had been difficult due to ongoing building work. We also saw a person’s care plan where it stated, “[Person] will be discouraged from smoking, if necessary” because they used paraffin-based emollient creams. The provided had not considered alternative risk management measures to enable the person to continue with their choice of smoking safely.

However, staff knew people and their needs well and care plans mainly contained sufficient detail to enable staff to provide person-centred care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw evidence of the provider working collaboratively with other services on behalf of people. People were regularly seen by the GP and other agencies where needs had been identified.

Care reviews were completed, and partners had been involved. People and their relatives felt staff kept them up to date and involved in their care provision and any appointments.

Partners did not raise any concerns about how the service worked in partnership with them. One partner commented, “The lead nurse was keen to have a proper awareness of the appropriate manual handling techniques for a person. I demonstrated what I was doing and some staff shadowed. They printed a copy of the instructions I provided and laminated a copy for the wall.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs had been assessed, and information was clear in care plans. Staff gave examples of how they had adapted their communication to meet people’s needs. We observed a staff member leaning in closely to a person who spoke quietly, and they responded directly to the person and checked their understanding.

Where needed people were regularly supported to attend eye tests. There was a hearing loop available in the main hall for people to use. The provider had an Accessible Information Standards (AIS) policy in place.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives told us staff involved them in decisions about their care, and they felt informed. However, most people told us they did not feel listened to by senior leaders.

Regular resident meetings were taking place, but people felt overwhelmingly frustrated about the lack of listening to their concerns. Comments included, “I attended one meeting which was awful. There was no two-way communication. Relatives are told come to the meeting but don’t come if you are going to complain.” Another comment included, “Meetings are one-way events. Management won’t take questions or concerns and tell people to shush up.” Leaders told us people could discuss their concerns in private, but it was not always appropriate for concerns to be discussed during relatives’ meetings. They felt they had an open-door policy for people to approach them about any feedback. Leaders also shared evidence of where they had communicated with people about arranging one-to-one meetings if they had any individual concerns. Since the assessment the provider had looked at how resident and relatives meeting were taking place to ensure it was effective for everyone involved.

However, the service completed annual surveys with people, and an action plan was generated after analysing the results. There was a complaints policy in place, and the policy was in the main foyer of the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care plans were detailed about people’s need and barriers they might face. For example, 1 care plan stated, “Encouragement was needed from staff so [Person] could access communal areas to reduce the risk of isolation.” Another care plan highlighted a night light should be left on in the persons room to support with vision.

We observed people had access to the equipment they needed, and people confirmed this. The service was over 3 floors with wide corridor access which allowed people to move freely with mobility aids. There was a lift and a stairlift available as a backup in case the lift broke down. Handrails were available throughout the service to help people with their balance and prevent falls.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Incidents had been acted upon in a timely manner to protect people, and alternative interventions had been put in place. People’s protected characteristics had been identified within people’s care plans to reduce the risk of discrimination and to ensure needs were being met. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

One partner shared with us a positive experience about a person who had been cared for in bed for many years. They said when the provider took ownership of the service, they had placed a referral for equipment to support the person out of bed so they could engage in other areas of the home.

However, some people and relatives told us the lack of social engagement and activities impacted on their experiences and outcomes. We saw there were limited systems in the home to measure how successfully people’s social outcomes were met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was the presence of a clinical team on site and staff had received end-of-life training. More recently the provider had supported some staff to attend specific end-of-life training to become champions in the service. Where people had consented to discuss their plans for the future, this was well documented in care plans.