The Bridges

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

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 the best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all clients. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients using the service. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients.

This service scored 83 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff completed a comprehensive assessment of need including history of substance misuse and any mental and physical health needs. The 5 care records we reviewed included information on the individual’s needs and preferences to ensure the care was person centred. Care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery-orientated.

All clients we spoke with told us the service fully involved them in the planning of their care and treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

We saw evidence that people’s needs were met in line with current guidance. Clients confirmed that they were fully involved in decision making and planning care and treatment from pre-admission to discharge.

The service had audits in place to ensure staff provided evidence-based care and treatment. Restrictions on clients were regularly reviewed to maximise their independence.

Staff we spoke with also told us their development needs were identified during staff meetings and supervision sessions; they were encouraged to learn about new approaches and attend training that could improve the care delivered to people.

The service held weekly community meetings for clients and the service ensured people had access to activities and local community groups.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across most 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 told us that meetings in place were effective for sharing information internally. The service had weekly leadership meetings and team meetings, handover meetings, supervision, and regular review meetings with clients.

The service had good working relationships with some external teams and organisations. We received feedback which indicated that The Bridges worked closely with its partners at both an operational and strategic level.

However, the service had identified that relationships with some referring services and mental health services in the area could be improved. The provider had an occupancy strategy for 2025/2026 aiming to maximise bed utilisation, improve referral pathways, and diversify funding streams for the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff we spoke with understood the importance of ensuring people's needs were met, including their physical health as part of a holistic programme of recovery. We reviewed 5 care records which showed clients had a physical health examination with the GP, use of health and wellbeing trackers and rating scales such as the general anxiety disorder and patient health questionnaires.

We spoke with 7 clients who confirmed that they were being supported to deal with issues relating to substance misuse and all aspects of their physical and mental health.

The provider had also employed a nutritional therapist to include a therapeutic intervention to the treatment offer to promote healthy eating and healthy lifestyle for clients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 used several methods to monitor and improve outcomes such as regular audits, meetings, surveys, and feedback. The service completed 3 month follow up reviews with clients and showed us a service evaluation report from March 2023 to December 2024 which used measures such as Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Drug and Alcohol Taking Confidence Questionnaire (DATCQ) and Crime-Pics II. The service reviewed all of these including incidents and blanket restrictions as part of quality assurance and risk management. The provider had a therapeutic quality and training team who also monitored outcomes through audits.

The staff team supported clients, and they attended meetings to discuss their progress.

We spoke with staff and leaders of the service who told us that meetings gave them the opportunity to share good practice and discuss quality improvement. Staff felt that clear outcomes and actions from meetings were communicated to them.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always carefully explained to people what their rights around consent were, made sure they fully understood them and always fully respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

All clients we spoke with told us about how much information was provided pre-admission, including house rules, therapy and support regarding any barriers to, challenges or anxieties about accessing the service. This was provided in both written and verbal forms as all clients received phone calls from the service.

Training records showed staff received training in Mental Capacity Act the training statistics showed 100% compliance. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of consent including the Mental Capacity Act. Clients were supported to communicate and make decisions to enable the service to deliver person-centred care and treatment in line with people's best interests.

We looked at 5 care records which demonstrated consideration of a person’s capacity to consent. Capacity assessments were carried out as appropriate and were both time and decision specific. Clients told us they were able to raise concerns and complaints, and these were acted on.

Plans regarding early exit from treatment were put in place from admission and regularly discussed. Elements of discharge planning were also in place from the start of the client’s recovery journey in terms of supporting clients to attend mutual aid groups and clients met with the resettlement worker 6 weeks into the primary stage of treatment.