You are here

St Bridget's - Care Home Physical Disabilities Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 October 2016

The inspection took place on 19 and 26 July 2016 and was unannounced.

Following an inspection in August 2015, we asked the provider to take action in response to breaches of regulation. The service was not safe in all areas. Risk assessments were in place but people may not have been protected from harm as their care records did not always contain the most up-to-date guidance on how to mitigate risks. Medicines were not always managed properly or safely and there was unclear guidance for staff on the use of barrier creams. There were not enough staff at all times of day to meet people’s needs in a timely way. The service was not consistently responsive. People could not be certain to receive personalised care that met their needs because records detailing their needs were inconsistent. The service was not well-led. The quality assurance system was not effective at monitoring and improving the quality of the services provided. As a result, the provider sent us an action plan that outlined the actions that had been taken in order to achieve compliance. At this visit, we found that action had been taken and these requirements had been met.

St Bridget's - Care Home Physical Disabilities is run by the provider Leonard Cheshire Disability. It is a care home for people needing personal care and accommodation that provides care for up to 38 people who have a range of physical disabilities, some of whom have an associated learning disability. At the time of our visit there were 30 people living at the home. The home’s brochure states that they [Leonard Cheshire Disability], ‘Have been providing support to people for over 60 years and we now work at over 200 sites in the UK.’ The website states that, ‘We support disabled people to have the freedom to live their lives the way they choose.’

In the Provider Information Return (PIR), the registered manager stated that, ‘In addition to their bedrooms people have access to communal areas including lounges, activities room, a small kitchen, and various outside spaces. All accommodation and facilities for people who live at St. Bridget's is on the ground floor and accessible for people who use a wheelchair. All bathrooms have been refurbished in the last year and have fully automatic baths and ceiling track hoists.’

The home had a registered manager in place. 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 were protected from risks to their health and wellbeing. Up to date plans were in place to manage risks, without unduly restricting people’s independence. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly so information was updated for staff to follow.

People said they felt safe at the service and knew who they would speak to if they had concerns. The service followed the West Sussex safeguarding procedure, which was available to staff. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in reporting any suspicion of abuse.

People were treated with respect and their privacy was promoted. Staff were caring and responsive to the needs of the people they supported. Staff sought people's consent before working with them and encouraged and supported their involvement.

People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. Medicines were administered safely.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health. People at risk of choking had been assessed by a Speech and Language Therapist (SaLT). The assessments gave clear details of people’s eating, drinking and swallowing needs. This included the different textures of food and thicknesses of fluids that people needed to manage their individual risk of choking. Addition

Inspection areas



Updated 27 October 2016

The service was safe

Risks to people had been assessed and appropriate measures were in place to manage the risk, without unduly restricting people’s independence.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs in a timely way.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse.

People told us they felt safe living at the home.

Medicines were administered safely.



Updated 27 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received the training, support and supervision they needed to be able to provide safe and effective care.

People were asked for their consent to care and treatment. Where they were unable to make a decision the principles of the Mental Capacity Act were followed.

The registered manager had ensured that relevant applications to the statutory authority in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been submitted.

People told us that food at the home was good. Special diets were catered for and choking risks had been assessed.

People health needs were assessed and monitored and appropriate referrals were made to other professionals, where necessary.



Updated 27 October 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and quick to help and support people.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, relearn skills and make their own decisions. They were treated with kindness and respect; their dignity and privacy were upheld.

There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the service with good conversation and rapport between staff and people.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 October 2016

The service was not always responsive to people’s needs.

People were not always occupied and stimulated. People complained of being bored.

People’s individual needs were assessed, planned and responded to by staff who understood them.

People were encouraged to raise any concerns. Complaints were investigated and action taken to make improvements.



Updated 27 October 2016

The service was well-led.

There were quality assurance systems in place to effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

There was an open culture in the service, focussing on the people who used the service. Staff felt comfortable to raise concerns if necessary.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager provided clear leadership which was backed up by the care supervisor.