Bridle Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The new interim manager had prioritised the learning culture within the home as this had been identified in audits as an area for improvement. Staff confirmed that lessons learned were now shared as part of team meetings and supervisions. Where incidents had happened and staff had completed incident forms, the management team had consistently reviewed these to identify and mitigate any potential ongoing risk to people and shared the learning quickly with all staff to improve their knowledge and to ensure people’s ongoing safety.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care in which safety was effectively managed and monitored. They ensured there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services, so that transitions were smooth, coordinated and supported.

The provider had clear and robust processes to assess and plan for people’s needs before admission. As part of this, they used an enablement panel for individuals who required additional support in managing specific health conditions. This multidisciplinary process enabled managers to consult with senior leaders who had specialist knowledge, ensuring the service fully understood a person’s needs and could meet them safely before any transition occurred. This approach helped prevent avoidable or inappropriate admissions and supported well‑managed, person‑centred moves into the service.

We saw evidence of these processes working effectively in practice. During the assessment, a person was supported to transition to another provider offering a supported living placement. This decision was made because the person had developed the confidence, independence and life skills required to move to a less supported environment. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to ensuring people were placed in settings that best met their needs and goals, even when this meant facilitating a move outside the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff had a good understanding of people’s personalised risks and safeguarding needs. People had a staff member who was assigned as their key worker. This meant staff were able to build trusting relationships with people. Staff we spoke with were extremely knowledgeable about safeguarding risks and what this meant individually to people living at the home. For example, staff were aware of how people communicated their concerns nonverbally, through sounds, gestures and body language and were able to identify when people were in distress or at risk of harm.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were encouraged to be actively involved in discussions about their risks, preferences and the level of support they wished to receive. Staff understood people’s abilities and supported them to make decisions that promoted independence while keeping them safe.

For example, people living with epilepsy were supported at night through the use of remote checks via a video camera. This approach reduced the need for staff to be physically present in their rooms and allowed people greater privacy and autonomy during the night. The system enabled staff to respond promptly when needed, while avoiding unnecessary intrusion. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to reducing restrictions and promoting positive risk‑taking in a safe and well‑managed way.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was well‑maintained, clean and free from obvious hazards. Safety checks, such as fire equipment testing and environmental monitoring, had been completed regularly and any issues identified were addressed in a timely manner.

The home had an ongoing improvement and maintenance plan, which included scheduled redecoration and personalisation of people’s rooms. This ensured that the environment not only remained safe but also supported people’s comfort, dignity and identity. People were encouraged to choose colours, décor and furnishings that reflected their preferences, helping them feel at home while maintaining a safe space.

While the provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff employed, who received effective support, supervision and development, at times during unplanned staff absence, such as sickness, people experienced changes to their planned activities, particularly those within the community.

Staff understood people’s needs well, however staffing deployment was not always effective in ensuring people consistently received the support outlined in their care plans. Several people had a specified number of 2:1 support hours designed to enable them to access meaningful activities and time in the community. However, staff records did not clearly evidence that people consistently received these planned hours. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that support was delivered as intended, and in some cases, people had fewer opportunities to take part in activities that were important to them.

Although the provider had systems to monitor staffing levels and ensure shifts were covered, the impact of staff absence on people’s daily routines and opportunities showed these systems were not always robust enough to maintain continuity of support. Improvements were needed to ensure staff deployment and record‑keeping consistently supported people to receive the right care at the right time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There were robust infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in place. The home was visibly clean, well‑maintained and free from odours. Clear cleaning schedules were in use and were followed consistently. A dedicated domestic team ensured the home was kept to a high standard, and records showed regular monitoring of cleaning tasks, deep cleans and environmental checks.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment and knew how to use it correctly. Training in IPC was up to date, and staff demonstrated good understanding of hand hygiene, environmental cleanliness and safe waste disposal. The provider carried out regular audits which helped identify any concerns quickly and take prompt action. Systems and practice supported safe infection control and helped protect people, staff and visitors from the risk of infection.

Medicines, including Controlled Drugs (CDs) were found to be stored safely and securely with appropriate measures in place to manage stock levels. Temperature monitoring was in place across all storage areas to ensure medicines could be used safely.

Medicine records were detailed and individualised to each person. Staff completed thorough documentation when people went on home visits, ensuring medicine was given safely while away. Written protocols for medicines given ‘when required’ were very detailed and person-specific, including person-specific indicators for people who are non-verbal. Topical medication administration records were in place for all people with prescribed creams and appropriate risk assessments were in place for these medicines to inform those involved with care of the flammability risk.

Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed regularly, and people received their medicines on time. Medicines given ‘when required’ had additional notes written up about the reason for giving them and the monitoring that took place after. Care plans were in place for all people, providing information on medicine administration preferences and condition-specific care. People with epilepsy had care plans that detailed specialist input, support during and after seizures and medicine-related information. Staff had good knowledge of the specialist teams involved with each person and had worked closely with these teams to update care plans for people in their care.

Medicine audits were completed regularly and staff showed thorough processes for managing risks by putting clear action plans in place. Risks previously identified on audits were observed during inspection and had been rectified due to staff following through on planned actions. Competency records were up to date for staff where applicable.