You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 January 2018

Plymbridge House is a residential care home which provides care and accommodation for up to 40 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

This inspection took place on 27, 28 and 29 November 2017 and 6 December 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.:

At the time of the inspection, 39 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion for people through their conversations and interactions. People told us their privacy and dignity was promoted and they were actively involved in making choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. People and their relatives were encouraged to be part of the care planning process and to attend or contribute to care reviews where possible. This helped to ensure the care being provided met people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were personalised and guided staff to help people in the way they liked.

Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure people’s freedom was promoted. People were supported by consistent staff to help meet their needs in the way they preferred. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by engaging them in everyday tasks where they were able, for example laying the table and tidying their rooms if they wished. The registered manager and provider wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People’s human rights were protected because the registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Policies and procedures across the service were being developed to ensure information was given to people in accessible formats when required. People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions and information for people with cognitive difficulties and information about the service was available in larger print for those people with visual impairments.

The service was well led by the registered manager and provider and supported by a dedicated team. There were quality assurance systems in place to help assess the ongoing quality of the service, and to help identify any areas which might require improvement. Complaints and incidents were learned from to ensure improvement. The registered manager and provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. The service kept abreast of changes to maintain quality care.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected by safe recruitment practices and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people�s needs.

People were protected by staff that understood and managed risk. People were supported to have as much control and independence as possible.

People had their medicines managed safely.

People were protected from the spread of infection, because safe practices were in place to minimise any associated risks.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.



Updated 5 January 2018

The service was effective. People received support from staff that knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

Staff were well supported and had the opportunity to reflect on practice and training needs.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and promoted choice and independence whenever possible.

People�s eating and drinking needs were known and supported.



Updated 5 January 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were positive about the service and the way staff treated the people they supported.

Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with respect.

Staff supported people to improve their lives by promoting their independence and wellbeing.

People were supported in their decisions and given information and explanations in an accessible format if required.



Updated 5 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People were thoroughly assessed to ensure the service could meet their needs. Equality and diversity was respected and people�s individuality supported.

People received personalised care and support, which was responsive to their changing needs. Care records were written to reflect people�s individual needs and were regularly reviewed and updated

People were involved in the planning of their care and their views and wishes were listened to and acted on. People�s end of life preferences were known and followed.

People knew how to make a complaint and raise any concerns. Complaints were thoroughly investigated and learned from. People had no concerns.



Updated 5 January 2018

The service was well led.

There was a positive culture in the service. The management team provided strong leadership and led by example.

The provider and registered manager had clear visions and values about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were understood and shared with the staff team and underpinned policies and practice.

People and those important to them were involved in discussions about the service and their views were valued and led to improvements.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care. They felt listened to.

Quality assurance systems drove improvement and raised standards of care.