The Bridges

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

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

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.

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

Staff who we spoke with told us the leaders of the service encouraged an open, supportive and honest culture. The leaders had an effective leadership style; all staff had a focus on the clients experience and outcomes. Staff spoke of the autonomy to do their jobs and support to element different approaches to benefit the users of the service.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had policies and procedures to support whistleblowing and freedom to speak up. The providers safeguarding manager led on freedom to speak up and local managers promoted an open and honest culture within the service.

Staff we spoke with understood these policies and felt comfortable using them without fear of reprisal.

Managers were aware of the risks around closed cultures and had developed guidance to address this and implemented actions such as staff surveys and feedback, client engagement, observation and spot checks, governance reviews and data and trend analysis.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff told us that the provider was supportive and enabled staff to work flexibly to account for personal circumstances. Managers would also put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role. There were equality, diversity and inclusion champions within the service. The annual employee survey indicated that 75% of staff were aware of the equality, diversity and inclusion plan, and the employee resource groups. The service also employed staff who had their own lived experiences and clients we spoke with found this inspiring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

There were systems and procedures in place to ensure that the service premises were safe and clean, that there were enough staff, that staff were trained and supervised, that clients were assessed and treated well and that the service adhered to the Mental Capacity Act. Admissions to the service were managed well, discharges were planned, incidents were reported, investigated and learnt from and staff collected and analysed data from feedback about outcomes. Feedback from external partners regarding working relationships and outcomes was positive.

However, we identified that there were gaps in some of the providers’ compliance records for training and we also requested data that was either not provided, for example staffing data, or provided in a format that was difficult to review. For example, staff spoke with us about the training they had received but this was not captured on the information provided, so the provider did not have detailed oversight. Some of the restrictive practices captured on the register were overdue review but the provider assured us they would reconsider the access to streaming services raised during the assessment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders and feedback from external partners was positive and evidenced that staff within the service worked with them in a collaborative way to support client care and treatment.

The service worked with partner agencies and local third-sector organisations to promote joined up care and facilitate engagement and access to local provision, such as volunteering at an allotment, confidence-building activities on a yacht and mental health woodwork workshops.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback.

The service took part in local community activities e.g Pride events.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were given the time and support to discuss opportunities for improvements and completed a range of audits to ensure the service maintained good standards.

The service were introducing an ADHD coach to undertake some training with staff and undertake individual client work to support individuals and improve treatment outcomes. A nutritional therapist was employed by the provider to introduce some therapeutic interventions, training for staff and clients in terms of healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle.