Bridle Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had an allocated key worker who knew them well and who completed monthly reviews with them. This helped ensure staff had a good understanding of each person’s preferences and day‑to‑day support needs. However, the quality of the recorded information varied, and records did not always demonstrate how staff had interacted with people during these reviews or whether their needs had changed.

For example, one monthly review stated, “More consistency needed, same as last month,” without providing any detail about the discussion, observations, or whether any actions had been identified. This lack of meaningful information meant the provider could not always evidence that people’s needs were being thoroughly reassessed or that changes were being identified and acted upon in a timely way.

Improvements were needed to ensure assessments and reviews were consistently detailed, person‑centred and effective in guiding staff practice.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care in line with legislation and current evidence‑based good practice and standards.

Care plans contained guidance for staff on how to support people safely and effectively. Care records showed that risks were appropriately assessed and that care plans reflected recognised best practice. For example, where people were identified as being at risk of choking, detailed risk assessments had been completed and translated into clear care guidelines for staff to follow.

These guidelines included specific instructions such as carrying out appropriate observations during meals, ensuring food was prepared and cut into bite‑sized pieces, and using adapted cutlery to support safe eating and promote independence. Staff were familiar with these measures and demonstrated good understanding of how to apply them consistently. This evidenced that care was both personalised and grounded in recognised safety standards, supporting positive outcomes for people.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments of need when people moved between different services.

Staff shared information appropriately with relevant professionals to promote continuity of care. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff on when and how to contact external professionals, such as health or specialist services, and included indicators to help staff recognise when people may need additional support. Where appropriate, care plans also evidenced that people were supported to attend annual health checks and routine appointments. This collaborative approach helped ensure people received coordinated care and timely interventions, supporting positive health outcomes and reducing the risk of unmet needs.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People had aims and goals identified within their care plans, but records did not consistently demonstrate that people were supported to achieve these. In particular, outcomes relating to physical activity, community access and developing daily living skills were not always evidenced in daily records.

For example, one person had an identified aim to access the community daily and to increase their independence by helping to prepare meals. However, daily records showed that over a 14‑day period the person had accessed the community on only 2 occasions. Records also showed the person was observed watching staff prepare meals rather than being actively supported to participate, with this recorded on only 2 occasions. This indicated a gap between planned goals and the support provided in practice.

Improvements were required to ensure people were consistently supported to work towards their health‑related goals, and that accurate, outcome‑focused records evidenced how support was promoting healthier lifestyles and greater independence.

Improvements were required to ensure people were consistently supported to work towards their health‑related goals, and that accurate, outcome‑focused records evidenced how support was promoting healthier lifestyles and greater independence.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans identified a range of needs; however they did not always include clear outcome‑focused guidance to support staff practice. In some cases, care plans lacked sufficient detail about how support should be delivered in sensitive areas, which limited the provider’s ability to monitor whether outcomes were being achieved effectively.

For example, care plans did not contain information or guidance on how people wished to be supported with their sexual health and safety. Additionally, there was no clear guidance outlining how staff should protect people’s privacy and dignity when providing this aspect of support. This meant staff did not always have the direction needed to deliver consistent, person‑centred care, and the provider could not clearly evidence how outcomes in this area were reviewed or improved.

Improvements were required to ensure care plans clearly described expected outcomes, how they would be achieved, and how the provider would monitor and evaluate progress to ensure people’s needs, choices and dignity were consistently met.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person‑centred care and treatment.

We observed staff consistently seeking people’s consent before providing care and support, using each person’s preferred method of communication. Staff allowed people sufficient time to consider information and respond, ensuring they did not feel rushed or pressured into decisions. This supported people to exercise choice and control over their care.

The home had a range of easy‑read documentation available to support people’s understanding and involvement, including information used for best interest decisions and review meetings. This ensured people were able to fully participate in discussions about their care, even when decisions were complex. Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, processes were followed appropriately, and records evidenced that decisions were made in people’s best interests while promoting their wishes and preferences wherever possible.