Bridgewood Mews

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 71 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always consistently reviewed with them where they had the mental capacity to be able to do so. Where people lacked the mental capacity to be involved with reviews, individuals with the legal authority to be able do so on their behalf, were not consistently involved in this process, with some relatives also telling us this was the case.

However, the assessment process for people when they were assessed for their suitability for the service were detailed and involved people, their relatives and relevant healthcare professionals. Relatives also told us they were made aware should there be changes to their relations needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The documentation and delivery of people’s care was mostly clear, consistent and in-line with evidence-based good practice guidance. For example, the use of recognised assessment tools was in place regarding people’s pressure area care; staff told us the awareness they had of these assessments, and care provided to people reflected this evidence-based approach. This was aided by the service working closely with external healthcare professionals, such as GPs and nurses, to review treatment plans.

However, we saw people who had a modified diet did not always receive food that was presented in an appealing way, with staff also telling us the quality of food provided to people was not always based on recognised good practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff worked together within the service and records demonstrated they communicated effectively within daily care records, handovers and team meetings. This ensured staff were aware of people’s preferences, routines, and any changes in need.

The provider worked collaboratively with external professionals, including health and social care teams, to meet people’s needs. This helped ensure people received the right support at the right time. Staff feedback supported this, with 1 staff member saying, “Our GP works hard and well with us.”

Relatives told us staff kept them informed, with 1 relative stating, “If there are any changes or issues, the home always call me to let me know.”

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.

Although not all staff had always completed training relevant to people’s health needs, people’s assessments, care plans and risks assessments clearly and consistently provided guidance to staff so they could support people to live healthier lives. For example, people were encouraged to maintain their independence, where this was possible, and were well supported with their mobility and general wellbeing.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they supported people to manage their health and wellbeing needs, and this was supported by the views of relatives, 1 of whom told us, “The hospital lost [my relation’s] teeth, and the manager sorted 4 trips to the dentist to get them some more. Since being here, [my relation’s] weight has stabilised.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Although the monitoring of people’s care and treatment did not consistently involve people themselves and / or individuals involved in their care, people’s care and treatment was routinely monitored by staff and, more broadly, audited, by leaders. Furthermore, people’s experiences of some aspects of their care were also encouraged and monitored within service user meetings.

Staff described examples of the service effectively monitoring people’s health outcomes to support positive outcomes, with 1 staff member telling us, “People have made improvements since being with us. For example, one person’s mobility has improved a lot.”

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

Records showed mental capacity assessments were carried out for people in all areas of their care, and these were reviewed on a regular basis. People told us staff respected their wishes regarding how their care was provided, with relatives also saying staff provided care based on people’s consent.

Staff training records showed staff received Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training. This was supported by our observations, which included seeing people being asked if they wanted support with tasks and staff feedback. Staff displayed a good awareness of the MCA and how they applied this to people they supported.

Relatives also told us people’s consent was sought and respected when they were provided care, with 1 relative saying, “The staff are good at asking [my relation] if they are happy to receive support. They don’t just do it without asking.”