During an assessment under our new approach
Bridgewood House is a care home. At the time of our assessment the service was supporting 19 people living with learning disabilities and/or autism. This included 2 people living in their own bungalows within the grounds.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We carried out this assessment on 30 September and 7 October 2026 this included an out of hours visit.
This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People were supported by consistent staff who had the skills and knowledge to be able to support them safely. There were enough staff to support people safely. People had access to call bells and staff responded promptly. Safe recruitment processes were in place, and staff received a good induction, ongoing training, including access to apprenticeships and supervision. Care plans were highly person centred and provided clear guidance to staff on how to support people in accordance with their individual needs and preferences. Risks in relation to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. There were clear processes in place to report and monitor safeguarding events, and staff knew what to do if they thought someone was at risk of abuse or poor care. Medicines were managed safely and there were organised and safe systems in place.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. This was reflected in our observations and feedback from staff and people. The service was well maintained, homely and clean with a safe and attractive accessible garden area.
People’s needs were robustly assessed before they started using the service. They were able to make visits to see if they thought the service was a place they would like to make their home. People’s capacity was assessed and where people lacked capacity best interest assessments were completed to fully consider any restrictions. Best practice guidance was followed to assess and monitor people’s health. Feedback from health professionals was good. After a person had needed hospital treatment an AE nurse fed back ‘The level of knowledge and person-centred understanding made a significant difference to the care we were able to provide. Staff also received a compliment from a specialist practitioner in palliative care who fed back, “Working in collaboration with them has always been a seamless process”
People were provided with choices of high-quality food and drink to meet their nutritional needs and preferences.
Staff knew people well and had developed warm, respectful relationships with them. Their approach and skilled communication demonstrated how they valued people as equals and promoted mutual respect. Staff consistently encouraged people’s independence and ensured their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff considered people’s emotions and gave people opportunity to express their feelings. This was particularly evident in the way staff supported people when a fellow person living at the service died.
Staff feedback was entirely positive. Their comments included, “I love working here. We have a great support network. A great staff team. It is a lovely place to work” and “The part of my job I like most is after I have helped a resident and they give me a smile. I feel overwhelmed and happy. I like that I am able to support them to live their lives independently. They are happy, we are happy.”
People received individualised and person-centred care and support tailored to meeting their needs and ensuring positive outcomes. People’s bedrooms were personalised and maintained in the way they wanted. There was a good range of activities and social events available and people’s friendships and relationships were supported. The provider actively listened to the views of people, relatives and staff and there were good processes which evidenced feedback was listened and responded to. A recent survey highlighted excellent feedback from people and relatives. Staff confirmed there was good communication through meetings and handovers.
There was a positive culture in the home. Throughout our assessment we observed staff in all roles working with professionalism and care. Comments from staff included, “It is a very good place to work. Right from when I started working here, there is a positive work culture. From provider down it is positive” and “We have training to make sure we deliver quality care.”
A range of robust audits and checks were in place to monitor quality and safety within the service. and action was taken where any improvements were needed. Staff told us the provider and registered manager were visible, approachable, responsive and that the service was well managed. One staff member said, “We are treated fairly and equally. There is equality here. The managers and the seniors treat everyone fairly.” There was a focus on ongoing improvement and ensuring fulfilling lives for people who used the service. The management team were responsive to the assessment process, were open to suggestion and implemented some changes during the assessment.