You are here

Bridge Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 September 2016

The inspection took place on 28 July 2016 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was registered with the Commission in February 2016, so this was the first inspection of the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was not present at the office on the day we inspected the service. We were told they planned to step down from this role, but an acting manager had been recruited and their application to become the registered manager was being considered by the Commission.

Bridge Centre provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Doncaster area. At the time of our inspection the service was mainly supporting older people and people with a learning disability. The manager told us they planned to expand the agency to cover other areas of care in the future. Care and support was co-ordinated from the services office which is based near the centre of Thorne.

On the day of the inspection there were 13 people receiving support with their personal care. We spoke with six relatives to obtain their views on how the service operated, as people using the service were unable to talk to us on the telephone. All the people we spoke with told us they were happy with the service provided and praised the staff who delivered care.

The provider had a policy in place to protect people from abuse. The policy included types of abuse, and how to recognise and report potential abuse. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training about protecting people from abuse. However training records did not demonstrate that all staff had received this training.

People’s needs had been assessed and the relatives we spoke with told us they had been involved in formulating and updating care plans. Care records sampled identified people’s needs, as well as any risks associated with their care. However, the management team told us not all care files reflected people’s needs and preferences in sufficient detail. We saw the management team had begun to review and update people’s care plans in order to improve them. Relatives confirmed staff were meeting their family member’s individual needs, while this process was completed. We found staff were knowledgeable about the needs and preferences of the people they were supporting.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. However, this had not been consistently followed. For example, one staff member’s file did not include a reference from their last employer and there was no rationale for this recorded in their file. The manager took immediate action to rectify this.

We saw new staff had received an induction at the beginning of their employment, but documentation was not always up to date. Staff said they felt they had received enough training and support to enable them to carry out their job. However, training records did not demonstrate that all essential training had been provided in a timely manner. Staff had however received regular supervision sessions and spot checks to provide support, and to assess their capabilities.

Where people needed assistance taking their medication appropriate support was provided. However, medication records sampled contained occasional gaps and there was no evidence to show that the management team had checked to make sure these records had been completed in line with company policy. We also noted that protocols were not in place with regards to medicatio

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 September 2016

The service was not always safe.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people.

We found recruitment processes were in place, but these had not always been consistently followed.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medication safely, which included all staff receiving medication training.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 September 2016

The service was not always effective.

Records demonstrated people�s capacity to make decisions had been taken into account. Staff had completed training in this subject and understood their role in supporting people in their best interest.

Staff had completed a structured induction when they joined the agency and had access to a varied training programme that helped them meet the needs of the people they supported. However, records did not demonstrate that all staff had completed essential training in a timely manner.

Where people required assistance preparing food, most staff had received food hygiene training to help make sure food was prepared safely. People�s nutritional needs had been assessed and taken into consideration.



Updated 3 September 2016

The service was caring.

People received a good quality of care from staff who understood the level of support they needed and delivered care and support accordingly.

People told us staff respected their opinion and delivered care in an inclusive, caring manner.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they should respect people�s choices and ensure their privacy and dignity was maintained.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 September 2016

The service was not always responsive.

People using the service had been involved in planning their care. Not all care plans fully identified people�s needs and were individualised to reflect their abilities and preferences.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 September 2016

The service was not always well led.

The provider had used surveys, telephone calls and review meetings to make sure people who used the agency were satisfied with the service provided. They also used meetings to consult with staff.

There were systems in place to assess if the agency was operating correctly and make sure staff were working to company policies. However, audits had not been fully utilised and embedded.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.