Bridgewood Mews

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There were a complaints and equality and diversity policy in place, staff received training in these areas and told us they were able to speak to leaders should they have concerns, with relatives also saying staff kept them updated with changes in their relation’s needs.

We saw staff demonstrating a good understanding of these values when providing care to people. For example, people were supported with compassion, understanding and teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the culture, with one saying, “It’s a good team; we share the workload.”

Leaders worked closely with people, their relatives and staff to create an inclusive culture.

People and staff meetings were completed by leaders on a regular basis, which not only shared information about how the service was striving to provide good and safe care to people, but shared the values and future direction of the staff team and home. Leaders also used satisfaction surveys to obtain the views of people to shape how people received care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Although, leaders had failed to identify and / or effectively address the minor concerns we detailed within this report; as also described within other sections of the report, leaders provided clear and effective leadership in most other areas.

Leaders were capable and supportive. Staff were complimentary about the registered manager, with 1 staff member saying, “The registered manager is working really hard to bring and maintain high standards within the home. The registered manager is very visible - always comes on both floors to support both service users and staff.”

Senior leaders visited the service regularly and supported staff to maintain standards within the service. One staff member told us, “The company supports you well, even if it’s a bad thing – they always listen.” This created trust and confidence in the leadership team.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service displayed posters within the environment in which people and staff could be reminded what they can do should they ever have concerns. This message was reinforced by leaders within service user and staff meetings, and staff supervisions.

People told us they felt safe at the home, and staff and relatives also described people as being safe and knowing how to report concerns and having confidence these would be taken seriously by leaders. One relative said, “I’d have no hesitation in speaking to [the registered manager] if I had any concerns, and I know they’d be taken seriously.”

Where concerns had been raised, records showed these were responded to promptly, investigated and informed future practice.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff described a positive and supportive environment where colleagues were treated fairly and with respect. One staff member told us, “It’s good; we’re listened to here.”

In addition to the registered manager promoting an open environment in which staff felt listened to and supported on a day-to-day basis, the service and organisation also recognised the contribution of staff and supported them with well-being programmes. These programmes included ‘Feel-Good Fridays’, Employee of the Month, ‘You say, we did’, which were based on views captured from staff surveys and a buddy system for new colleagues.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Although effective systems were not always in place to ensure appropriate staff recruitment, staff training and the involvement of people and other individuals in the review of people’s care plans and risk assessments, there were a number of examples of good governance in other areas. These examples included: safety events being reviewed for understanding and learning; safeguarding and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) procedures being followed; care plans and risk assessments containing clear, and relevant and updated information about people’s needs. Examples also included: environments being clean and well-maintained; staffing levels being adequate; medicines processes and practices were safe and effective; and people’s care was kind, person-centred and in accordance with evidence-based good practice guidance. Effective systems were also in place to ensure the service worked well with external professionals; people’s mental capacities were assessed and recorded, and, where possible, consent sought from them; and staff were provided with clear and effective support from leaders.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders were aware of what stakeholders were available to the service and how to share information and access this support when needed. For example, when people’s needs required this, information would be reported to external professionals so people and the service received the support they required.

Leaders actively developed community links and supported people to access local activities and services, promoting inclusion, independence and wellbeing.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Although there were some areas which the provider did not always have an affective awareness of, when this was discussed with them, leaders listened and were keen to make prompt improvements in these areas. As detailed within other sections of this report, however, there was mostly a strong commitment and culture to ensuring both people received safe and positive outcomes.

Whether this included the way in which accidents and incidents were reviewed for understanding and learning or how people and staff feedback. Audit action plans, complaints were used by leaders to develop continuous improvement and the service demonstrated a strong commitment to this.