The Bridge Care Home

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

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

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person‑centred and detailed people’s backgrounds, life histories, and social, physical and mental health needs. They included clear guidance for staff on how to support people’s wellbeing, including personal care, oral health and maintaining physical health. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care. A relative told us, “The motivations and interactions of the staff are good, it’s not about the diagnosis, it’s about the care. The approach they use benefits residents and show they know people well.”

Care was responsive to people’s cultural, spiritual and emotional needs. Care plans included detailed “about me” information, and people were supported to attend religious services, including weekly church attendance and services held within the home. People were also supported to visit graves or memorials of people important to them if they wanted to, which provided emotional comfort. Staff supported personal preferences, such as arranging takeaway meals in line with people’s wishes.

Staff monitored people’s mobility, routines and fatigue levels and adjusted support to reduce risks and respond to changes in need. Staff had completed training in dementia and person‑centred care and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s routines and preferences.

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.

The service provide care that was consistent and centred around each resident. There was evidence of a varied programme of activities provided throughout the year. Seasonal newsletters showed a wide range of activities, including themed events, live entertainment, special dining experiences, resident forums, day trips and sensory outings. These activities were planned in response to what people said they wanted and supported people to maintain their routines, identity and sense of purpose.

People spoke positively about the activities on offer. A person told us about a day trip they attended on the day of our visit and said they enjoyed it and that staff always ensured they had a positive experience. Another person told us, “We have so much to do. You can’t be bored. I join in most days, but sometimes I want to stay in my room and do my crocheting.”

During our visit, we saw people being supported to take part in live entertainment in the main reception area on both days. We also observed a music therapy and exercise session in the dementia unit. People, relatives and staff took part together, and the atmosphere was positive and engaging. A person told us they always looked forward to these activities.

The service supported people to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives. People were encouraged to take part in everyday activities and people‑led initiatives, such as gardening, laundry tasks, cooking and administrative support. This was evidenced through activity schedules and photographs, which showed people actively engaged in daily life within the home.

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

People’s communication needs were identified through the care planning process. This included people’s needs related to hearing, sight and speech, as well as how they preferred information to be shared with them. The service used a range of methods to support communication, including large‑print materials, event cards, hearing loops, iPads, written information and other visual aids.

The provider also supported people whose first language was not English. Staff were employed who could speak other languages to meet people’s language and cultural needs.

Information such as service user guides was available in large‑print and easy‑read formats. The registered manager told us that information could also be provided in other languages if required. This helped ensure people received information in a way they could understand and access.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback, raise complaints and influence their care through clear, accessible processes such as a structured complaints procedure with defined timescales and multiple escalation routes, including external bodies. A person told us, “I speak up if there is anything that is not right. I’m quite able to and I do for myself and others. They act on things quickly and make it better.” A relative commented, “I go to residents meeting with my [relative] and am listened to. My l[relative] says things and I put it across, they are open to us asking questions i.e. their food was not warm enough and they said they are looking at getting better equipment and they did to keep the food warmer better.” People and their families were regularly invited to provide views through relatives’ meetings and ongoing communication in newsletters, which actively encouraged feedback and ideas. People were involved in decisions about their choices, demonstrated by the ‘Resident Dining Forum’ where suggestions directly resulted in menu changes that were fed back to people. Staff involved people in day‑to‑day decisions about their care, such as clearly explaining to an individual about their medical appointment in a supportive and respectful manner.

Complaints made about the service was recorded. The registered manager and nominated person had addressed them following the provider’s procedure. Each complaint had been investigated and responded to and resolved. Lessons learnt were discussed and shared with staff as part of improving service quality.

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

There were effective processes in place to ensure people were admitted to the service based on their individual needs and the service’s ability to meet them. The registered manager told us admissions were carefully considered and based on people’s care needs and whether these could be safely and appropriately supported by the home.

Care plans outlined people’s physical needs, including any protected characteristics and reasonable adjustments required. The environment was adapted to support people’s needs, with equipment such as grab rails in toilets, adapted bathrooms and call bells available in people’s rooms. We saw call bells were within people’s reach.

The home was purpose built and designed with people’s needs in mind, which promoted equitable access to care, facilities and experiences for everyone living at the service. A wide range of facilities were available, including quiet and relaxation rooms, a cinema, beauty salon, gym and a private dining room. These facilities were accessible to people regardless of their mobility, health needs or personal circumstances.

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.

The service encouraged people and relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. Monthly residents’ meetings were held, giving people the opportunity to speak openly about the service. A person told us, “I attend the residents’ meetings, and I can speak up about concerns. I see the registered manager around and I can speak to them about anything.” A relative told us the relatives’ WhatsApp group and meetings were useful, adding that feedback was listened to and acted upon, for example when concerns were raised about food choices.

Staff recognised and respected people’s social status, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Where people preferred same‑gender staff for personal care, this was respected. Staff addressed people by the specific titles they wished to be addressed and those who wanted to take part in religious services were supported. Religious and cultural events were celebrated in the home, showing the service responded inclusively to people’s diverse needs and preferences.

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 had advance care plans in place that recorded their end‑of‑life wishes, including DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decisions, and staff were aware of these plans. Staff had completed end‑of‑life care training and worked closely with people, relatives and professionals to ensure care was personalised, dignified and compassionate.

End‑of‑life needs were discussed at staff meetings to ensure staff were aware of changes and required care. Staff understood people’s preferences, such as favourite music, and supported families throughout the process. The service worked closely with GPs and the palliative care team, and anticipatory medicines were in place to support comfort and symptom management. Staff closely monitored people’s needs to ensure they remained comfortable and well supported.