The Bridge Care Home

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.

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.

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.

People and relatives spoke positively about the quality of care provided. A person told us, “I like it here. They are very kind and accommodating and meet my needs.” A relative said, “I would recommend them. I feel a weight has been lifted off me. They go the extra mile, communication is good and the management team listens and gives time when changes are needed.”

Staff understood the vision and values of the service and described a strong focus on delivering high‑quality care in a calm and supportive environment. Staff told us they were well supported through induction, training and supervision and understood their roles and responsibilities. A staff member said the registered manager had high expectations and regularly monitored standards to ensure good care was delivered.

The registered manager promoted a positive and open culture where staff worked together to achieve good outcomes for people. The provider used systems such as team meetings, supervisions, appraisals and handovers to share values and keep staff informed. The provider had policies and procedures which guided the running of the service.

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.

People using the service, relatives and staff spoke positively about the leadership and management of the service. A person told us, “Everyone here is very nice and helpful. They know their jobs and actually do it.” A relative said, “Definitely well managed. The management team are visible, available and answer our questions.” Another relative praised front-line staff, stating the receptionist was helpful, caring and knew everyone well.

Staff felt well supported and described leaders as knowledgeable and approachable. Clear and visible leadership was evident, with team leaders providing day-to-day guidance and staff knowing who to approach for support. A staff member told us, “There is good communication here. The managers and staff are supportive, and we work together as a team.”

The registered manager and team leaders held daily meetings to discuss issues, share learning and agree actions promptly. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of their regulatory responsibilities and had submitted required notifications to CQC appropriately and in a timely manner.

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

Staff and people using the service reported that they generally felt able to raise concerns when necessary. The service had a whistleblowing policy that clearly outlined how staff could report issues such as unsafe care, poor staffing levels, inadequate training, unsafe working conditions, or abuse. The policy promoted openness, honesty, and a commitment to high-quality care.

The policy also provided information on how staff could contact external agencies if they felt unable to raise concerns internally. However, although it referred to a Freedom to Speak Up champion, it did not identify who this was or explain how they could be contacted. As a result, this source of support may not have been fully accessible. The registered manager updated this the policy including the details of who to contact.

We also identified that grievance and complaints appeals were managed by the operations director/nominated individual, who had a family relationship with the registered manager. This raised concerns about the independence of the process, and some staff indicated they felt less comfortable and less confident about raising concerns internally as a result.

We discussed these concerns regarding the disciplinary and appeals process with the registered manager and nominated individual. They explained that if a concern was raised about the registered manager, the investigation would be undertaken by a manager from another service within the organisation. The service also used an independent HR provider, and policies made it clear that staff could report concerns directly to the CQC. These arrangements provided additional, impartial routes for staff to raise concerns.

The provider valued diversity within the workforce and promoted an inclusive and fair culture. They took steps to improve equality and equity for staff and ensured individual needs were recognised and supported.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training and told us they felt supported at work. Where staff had specific needs, appropriate adjustments and support plans were in place. For example, where staff had additional support needs, individual support plans and reasonable adjustments were in place. This included adapting training and working arrangements to support staff wellbeing and ensure they could carry out their roles effectively.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received. A staff member told us, “When I first joined, I got lots of support from everyone, including management, to help me settle in.” Another said, “We have regular breaks and they encourage us to take them. When I had something going on at home, I spoke to management and they were flexible and supportive.”

The service also promoted inclusion through celebrating cultural and religious events, such as Diwali, Chinese New Year, St Patrick’s Day and other cultural days. This helped create an inclusive workplace where diversity was recognised, respected and valued.

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.

There were quality assurance systems in place, including a programme of audits completed and reviewed by the registered manager. These covered key areas such as health and safety, medicines management, care records, call bell response times, staff training and supervision, pressure sore, falls, and nutrition and hydration records. Audit outcomes were shared with the management team, and action plans were developed to address identified shortfalls, demonstrating an ongoing governance process.We identified 2 areas for improvement, both of which were acted on promptly by the registered manager, including 1 relating to a medication audit.

The management team regularly reviewed audit findings and safety information, and governance meetings were used to discuss service quality, risk and improvement actions. The provider also sought assurance through engagement with people using the service, their relatives and staff. Feedback was gathered and used to inform service improvement. A relative told us, “Staff are lovely, management regularly call and ask if there is anything I can suggest, they do that once a month.”

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

The service demonstrates exceptionally strong partnership working and community integration, offering residents meaningful, socially enriching experiences through well‑established collaborations with organisations such as Age UK, which provided inclusive monthly activity sessions that reduced isolation and promote belonging. Regular intergenerational nursery and toddler group visits further strengthened community connections, with activities adapted to peoples needs and shown to improve mood, engagement and communication. The innovative partnership with Crossroads Care Kent delivered on‑site counselling that benefited relatives and staff, with clinically measured reductions in anxiety and depression. This demonstrated significant wellbeing impact and strong community value. Together, these partnerships created a vibrant, outward‑facing service where people experienced consistent, meaningful connection with their wider community. A relative commented, “Would recommend, it is really good, do community events and provide for the people on the estate to go and that is really good.”

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.

The service introduced a range of creative and evidence‑based approaches to support people’s needs. These included memory‑enhancing activities for people living with dementia, structured exercise programmes to support mobility, and personalised music therapy to improve mood, cognition and engagement. The service introduced a virtual dementia bus, which enabled staff and relatives to experience dementia from a first‑person perspective. This promoted greater understanding, improved the way care was delivered and helped reduce anxiety and frustration for people living with dementia and staff. Staff told us they found it very useful.

Learning from audits and reflective practice was used to improve care delivery. For example, when audit findings identified missed opportunities to support hydration, the service introduced visual prompts and reminders. This led to improved staff awareness and a measurable increase in people’s fluid intake.

The registered manager actively engaged with the wider system to support learning and improvement. They attended local authority drop‑in clinics, safeguarding meetings, multidisciplinary forums, CQC workshops and regular meetings with other providers and registered managers. Weekly discussions were held to share concerns, learning and good practice. This supported safe, effective care and promoted continuous improvement across the service.