Bourne Bridge House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 had systems in place to assess and understand people’s needs before they moved into the service. This included gathering information from the person, their family members where appropriate, and professionals involved in their care. People were encouraged to visit the service prior to moving in, and staff would usually visit the person in their current home to support the transition process and gain a better understanding of their needs, preferences, and routines.

Information obtained during the assessment and transition process, together with information provided by commissioning teams and other professionals, was used to develop initial care plans. This helped to ensure staff had the information they needed to provide safe and person-centred support from the outset.

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.

The registered manager ensured people’s care plans were detailed and gave staff the right level of information to meet people’s needs. This included information about how people expressed emotions and signs of anxiety or distress. This information helped staff identify people’s needs and provide effective support.

Where staff identified concerns, they referred people to appropriate health professionals to ensure they received the support they needed.

Care and treatment were consistently planned and delivered in line with best practice, and evidence-based standards. Staff worked collaboratively with people to ensure what mattered most to them was central to care decisions. Clinical tools and guidance were regularly reviewed and used effectively to assess, monitor, and adapt support. This ensured interventions were safe, personalised, and designed to achieve the best possible outcomes.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Processes for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts were effective, with systems for families, people and staff to raise concerns or share views.

Staff described communication practices, including thorough handovers at the start of each shift, which helped them remain informed and confident in their roles. One staff member said, “We always have a really good handover. When people’s needs change, we always have access to this.”

One professional told us; “I’ve received handover of incidents and staff actions/interventions to avoid and manage such. A good example has been optimising staffing levels when supporting my patient in outings.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported by the staff team and external professionals to manage their health. The staff team supported people to attend a range of healthcare appointments. A professional told us that people were supported to attend their annual learning disability and mental health checks when requested. They also said people were well supported with any follow up checks needed.

A relative told us; “They [staff] are very careful that the food is all cut up and he eats really nicely and the hydration is very good. They are health-conscious. The food is mainly cooked from scratch and [staff name] has cooked many different recipes from around the world and it’s all authentic food”.

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 service had comprehensive systems to monitor and improve outcomes for people. Each person had personal goals identified within their support plans, and these were used to shape daily support and measure progress. Plans centred on people’s preferences to ensure people received personalised care. Care records reflected good practice and guided staff to deliver safe support, including clear monitoring of hydration, nutrition and wellbeing. The provider worked with health care professionals to attend appointments and reviews.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service had an embedded culture which promoted people’s choice, control, and independence. Staff supported people to make their own decisions wherever possible and obtained consent before providing any care or support.

Records demonstrated that where a person may have lacked capacity to make a specific decision, capacity assessments had been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where required, best interest decisions were made with the involvement of the person, their representatives, and relevant professionals. Where restrictions were necessary to maintain people's safety, information had been shared with commissioning authorities to support referrals to the Court of Protection, in line with legal requirements.

The provider told us that some mental capacity assessments and best interest records required updating. They had identified this through their own quality assurance processes and were taking action to review and update these records.

Staff had completed mental capacity training. A staff member told us, “I always explain to people what I am doing and why”.