Bridgewood Mews

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question [add rating]. At this assessment the rating has remained/changed to [add rating].

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and, where relevant, those with the authority to act on their behalf, were not involved in the review of people’s care plans and risk assessments, with relatives also telling us this was the case.

However, when people were assessed for their suitability for the service, assessments involved people, their relatives and relevant healthcare professionals. Information contained within people’s care plans and risk assessments was personalised to people’s individual needs. People’s views about aspects of their care were encouraged within service user meetings and relatives told us they were made aware when there were changes to their relations needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Although people were not always consistently provided care from familiar staff who knew their needs well, with the service using high numbers of agency staff on occasions, we did not observe concerns with the care people received.

Most staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s health conditions and worked effectively with professionals, which ensured continuity and timely responses to changes in people’s needs.

Relatives also told us staff worked closely with families and external health professionals when this was required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication care plans were in place, which detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them.

The home used visual information to support understanding and independence. Clear signage helped people navigate the service, including bathing and showering areas. Posters explained how to raise concerns, and regular newsletters kept people and relatives informed about life in the home. However, we could not be assured people’s communication needs were always being met when being provided meal choices, with there being a lack of picture options.

The provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

As detailed within other sections of this report, where people were able to do this, they were not always involved in the review of their care plans and risk assessments. Where people were unable to do this, due to their mental capacity, individuals with the legal authority to be involved in people’s care, were also not involved in this process.

However, people, their relatives and relevant healthcare professionals were involved and listened to during the assessment process before people moved to the service. People’s views about aspects of their care were encouraged within service user meetings and satisfaction surveys, and relatives told us they were made aware when there were changes to their relations needs, with 1 relative saying, “I’m kept informed of changes.“

A complaints procedure was in place, and relatives and staff told us they felt able to raise concerns, who these needed to be raised with and they were confident it would be dealt with.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staffing levels were based on people’s assessed dependency needs and we found staff to be visible and responsive to people.

Relatives told us the service was accessible and responsive. One person told us, “The managers have been up this morning to say hello and check everything is ok.”

Where people could not access community services easily, staff arranged visiting health professionals, such as GPs, dentists, and chiropodists, to attend the home. Staff also worked flexibly around people’s routines and health needs to ensure timely access to care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place and staff had received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, communication needs, or background. For example, staff used picture cards with some people with communication needs to support them to be able to communicate and make choices. Staff worked with external health professionals to promptly address health needs, helping reduce avoidable deterioration.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told us staff treated everyone fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated in response to people’s changing needs and ongoing assessments. Staff worked with families and, in some cases, external healthcare professionals, to review the support people may need in the future.

Although not all staff had completed end-of-life training, the information within end-of-life care plans was clear, detailed and person-centred, with people’s preferences being captured where this was possible.