- Care home
St Bridget's - Care Home Physical Disabilities
Report from 28 May 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 26 June to 9 July 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to people of all ages, including people living with cerebral palsy, acquired brain injury, degenerative health conditions, and people with a learning disability.
We found 3 breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, person-centred care and good governance.
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.
Systems were not sufficiently robust to ensure identified risks relating to people’s health needs were managed safely. In some instances, there was a lack of information for staff to follow within people’s care plans. The home afforded a safe environment for people, but the home was not cleaned to a high standard. Care provided was not always delivered in a personalised way. Care plans did not provide information that reflected people’s preferences and choices. Information was not always provided in an accessible format. Governance and auditing systems were not sufficiently robust to identify issues found at this inspection or to drive improvements.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and reflected upon so that lessons were learned at this service and also shared with other [SD1]services of this provider. When people moved into the home, the provider worked with professionals who knew people well, so their care and support needs could be assessed and catered for appropriately. People were safe living at the home and protected from the risk of potential abuse or harm. When incidents did occur, the provider took appropriate action. Medicines were managed safely.
People’s relatives were involved in the planning of their family member’s care. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure care remained appropriate and current. Capacity assessments were completed.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. A range of activities was on offer, including access to IT and dedicated support from staff in the computer room. Staff wellbeing was supported by the management team, including any diverse needs and cultural differences.
People had access to a range of health and care professionals who understood their diverse needs. Complaints were listened to, logged and acted upon. People’s wishes and preferences for their future lives were documented and recorded.
Staff spoke highly of the management team and felt supported in their roles.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We gathered evidence about people’s views through a variety of means. We spoke with people and their relatives, we communicated with people who used assistive technology to speak with us, and we observed people throughout our time at the home.
People were generally positive about the home and the care they received. While people expressed general satisfaction with their care, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards. Staffing levels were a concern with some people and their relatives. People who were in support of 1:1 funding had a different experience. For example, more opportunities to go out. One person said, “I have a call bell I can use and staff come when they can. I have a keyworker, but time doesn’t exist for that. There’s no time to talk to them because they are on busy shifts.
People and their families met with staff and could visit the home before they moved in. However, there was no evidence to show how people were involved in planning their care. Hospital passports did not include information about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s care needs were reviewed regularly, and people’s consent to make decisions was gained lawfully.
People told us they felt cared for by staff and given the privacy they needed when visitors came to see them. A range of activities was organised for people, but their independence was not actively promoted or encouraged. People’s immediate needs were catered for and people felt listened to.
Care was not always provided for people in a person-centred way. Some people’s decisions were based on staff availability rather than their own wishes, for example, the time people wanted to get ready for bed. People did not always receive information in an accessible way that met their needs and preferences. People’s complaints were listened to and acted upon. People were supported to plan for important life changes and to make important decisions about their future, including their end of life care.
There were opportunities for people to be involved in their local community. For example, 1 person had been having conversations with school children about acknowledging diversity and respecting people’s differences.