- Care home
Bridgewood Mews
Assessment report published 17 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 09 to 13 March 2026.
Bridgewood Mews provides accommodation for a maximum of 20 people, including people living with dementia and requiring personal and nursing care. There were 16 people living at the home when we visited.
The last rating for Bridgewood Mews was good. The overall rating following this assessment of Bridgewood Mews has remained good.
We found a clean, presentable and well-maintained home environment. Safeguarding, equality and diversity, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) procedures were clearly understood and being followed by staff. People’s care plans and risk assessments contained clear, relevant and updated information about their needs. People were provided with kind, person-centred care in accordance with evidence-based good practice guidance. Medicines processes and practices were safe and effective. The service worked well with external professionals. A strong culture of learning and continuous improvement was in place. Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs, and staff had a good awareness of people’s needs. Staff were provided with clear and effective support from leaders.
However, we found staff recruitment processes had not always identified the need for potential risks being mitigated and staff training relevant to people’s health needs had not always been provided to all staff. We fed this back to the provider who acted immediately to reduce any risks, this included liaising with external professionals to organise specialist health training. People and other relevant individuals were not involved in the review of people’s care plans and risk assessments. People with modified diets did not always receive food that looked appealing.
People's experience of this service
People appeared happy and safe living at the service, and people and relatives told us this was the case.
People appeared comfortable in their home environment and with the staff who supported them. There were some good and positive interactions with staff, with people being observed comfortably engaging with staff while receiving emotional support. Relatives told us staff were kind and provided compassionate and responsive support to people.
Although people were not involved in the reviews of their care plans and risks assessments, people’s views were captured within service user meetings and satisfaction surveys, and people were able to make choices regarding aspects of their lives, such as when they wanted to get up, the food they wanted to eat and the activities they engaged in.
People’s needs were supported by the involvement of relatives and external professionals. Relatives told us the service informs them of changes to people’s needs, and they were made to feel welcome.