Bridle Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We consistently observed positive and respectful interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff spoke to people in a warm and caring manner, using their preferred communication methods, and took time to listen and respond appropriately. People were supported discreetly, and staff were mindful of maintaining privacy when providing personal care or discussing sensitive matters.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people as individuals and showed genuine concern for their emotional wellbeing. One staff member said, “It takes time to build trust but now I have this with people I understand their [nonverbal] cues such as a high-pitched scream means happiness and a low-pitched scream means distress. Knowing this means I can support appropriately and also very quickly.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people well and were able to describe what was important to them and how they liked to be supported. Care was delivered in a way that recognised people’s individuality and promoted choice and independence.

People were encouraged and supported to personalise their own rooms, enabling them to create environments that reflected their personalities, interests and preferences. This helped people feel comfortable and settled in their home. The layout of the service also allowed people to access quiet areas when needed, supporting those who required space for sensory regulation, rest or emotional wellbeing.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence in line with their aims and goals.

People were encouraged to be involved in planning their care, however, goals within care plans were not always clear or detailed enough to effectively support independence. This limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate how people were supported to make progress and exercise choice and control over their daily lives.

For example, one person had an identified goal to improve their daily living skills. However, the care plan did not clearly specify which skills were important to the person, their current level of ability, or how staff should support the person to develop these skills. Without this detail, staff did not have clear guidance to promote consistent, structured support, and opportunities to encourage independence may have been missed.

Improvements were required to ensure goals were clearly defined, person‑centred and outcome‑focused, with guidance for staff on how support should be delivered to help people achieve greater independence, choice and control in their lives.

The provider did not always record people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Some aspects of care planning lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on how to respond promptly to people’s immediate needs. This meant staff did not always have clear direction on how support should be provided in situations where people required close monitoring or reassurance.

For example, where people required checks during the night, there was no care plan in place to support this need. Records did not include guidance for staff on how often checks should occur or how to carry them out in a way that balanced safety with people’s comfort, privacy and dignity. This increased the risk of inconsistent practice and meant staff may not have been able to respond effectively to minimise distress or discomfort when people needed reassurance or support. The regional manager acknowledged this feedback and evidenced they already had an action plan in place to address this area of concern.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled them to consistently deliver person‑centred care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from management. Staff told us they felt listened to, valued and supported in their roles, even during a period of change within the service. The provider encouraged open communication and created opportunities for staff to share feedback and raise concerns.

One staff member said, “There has been a lot of changes; the deputy manager has been brilliant and always supported us. The interim manager has also really listened to our feedback, which has resulted in positive changes already.” This demonstrated a commitment to staff wellbeing and a responsive leadership approach.

Staff were supported through supervision, training and day‑to‑day management oversight, which helped them feel confident and motivated to deliver high‑quality, person‑centred care. This positive staff culture supported continuity of care and improved outcomes for people using the service.