Bridge Court

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider did not always work within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There was information available that showed when people could make decisions and when they may lack the capacity to make decisions themselves. When relatives held lasting power of attorneys for people, there was relevant documentation to show how they had been involved with this process. However, there were no formal mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions in place to show how individual decisions had been considered and made. The registered manager told us they would consider this and take action to make the required improvements. The assessments that had been completed by the local authority and provider before people stated using the service had considered people’s capacity.

People raised no concerns with how they consented to their care. Other capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied, including when people had a ‘ReSPECT’ form in place. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of how people consented and of the processes to follow.