- Homecare service
Bridgewater Care
Assessment report published 19 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Bridgewater Care is a domiciliary care agency providing the regulated activity of personal care to people living in their own homes.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspect where people receive personal care, this includes support with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.
Who the service is for
Bridgewater Care provide a service to adults of all ages and people who are living with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities or sensory impairments. At the time of our assessment, 65 people were supported by Bridgewater Care, 55 of whom received personal care.
We carried out this assessment on 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
Key findings
Staff and the management team completed safeguarding training every 2 years and the management team also completed more in-depth training. Should there be an incident that indicated staff needed additional training, this would be arranged for them. When staff noted concerns, they contacted the care manager or registered manager who would investigate the concerns and act to ensure the person was safeguarded.
All staff had completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) training. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In the community in their own homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (community DoLS), which is part of the MCA. The management team were also familiar with what actions they should take should a person need a community DoLS.
Risks had been assessed and used to ensure care was delivered safely to people. While mitigation was in place to prevent avoidable harm, people were enabled to take positive risks. For example, instead of shopping for people, whenever possible and if people wanted to, staff would take people to the shops. People were also supported to attend events such as get togethers to enrich their lives.
Risks to people’s health and safety were also assessed in their homes. The home environment was reviewed to ensure care could safely be delivered and staff and people would not be harmed. For example, trip hazards, whether homes were well lit during winter months and access were reviewed at the pre-assessment.
When taking new clients, the provider was mindful of the capacity of their staff team and only increased numbers of people supported when staffing levels allowed. This ensured all care packages were delivered by staff who were not rushed and had sufficient time to deliver quality care.
Staff participated in regular 1-to-1 supervisions with a senior staff member. The sessions had a set agenda and prior to the meeting, the supervisor would collate information such as medicines errors, if there had been any complaints or compliments about the staff member, and whether their training was current or if they needed a gentle reminder. This ensured meetings were relevant and current. Staff were also encouraged to bring any items they wished to discuss such as challenges and things that had gone well. This was also an opportunity to ensure staff members work/life balance was working or see if any changes could be made to improve this. Sometimes group supervisions took place to look at areas for improvement and provide training. The most recent theme was care notes, however staff were aware if they needed 1-to-1 time with their line managers they may arrange another meeting.
In addition to mandatory training, staff were encouraged and supported to complete qualifications in relevant areas.
A detailed medical history and risk assessment was completed to ensure medicines were safely managed, either by people, their relatives or by the provider. The provider ensured medicines were safely ordered, stored and administered. Risks associated with particular medicines, such as blood thinning medicines and paraffin based topical medicines had been identified and were clearly recorded on people’s Medicines Administration Records (MARs) alongside instructions about how to reduce or manage risks. Staff added new stock to the electronic medicines system when delivered and the care tasks on the electronic care planning system ensured medicines were given as prescribed for people. The provider had excellent knowledge and awareness of medicines and had worked with mental health professionals to better understand implications of administering sedating medicines to people.
Home care leads completed initial assessments with people to ascertain their needs, what they wanted support with and how they wished the support to be delivered. This information was discussed in meetings with the registered manager and other senior staff, to ensure there was both the capacity within the staff team and the skills to support the person how they wished. The provider had successfully worked out packages of care with people where other services had been unable to continue supporting.
The provider ensured their knowledge remained current in adult social care good practice and developments through attendance at forums or through websites such as Skills for Care.
Regular reviews of care were completed and plans updated as necessary. People and their relatives had regular opportunities to feedback on care received. The provider collated the feedback on a complaints and compliments spreadsheet which was regularly reviewed to identify trends that could indicate issues with service provision or staff. Any identified concerns were immediately acted on.
The provider had a robust consent process which involved obtaining written consent from the person, or in line with legislation from their nominated legal representative such as their lasting power of attorney (LPA).
The consent form also defined implied consent and care records required staff to record how consent had been obtained before they supported people.
We received positive feedback about staff. One relative told us, “The carers are lovely, really lovely and I’ve been there when the carers are and they are like friends to [name]. They love them [the care staff], they are bright and friendly, cheery and chatty and they trusts them [the care staff]” Another relative said, “All the staff are very professional and very caring, they are all very kind and it’s been amazing”.
There were several comments from people and relatives concerning having fewer staff attend their calls. They did not have any concerns about the care staff; they just preferred to have fewer different staff visit them so they could be more familiar with more regular staff.
If people had any concerns about staff, they knew to telephone the registered manager or care manager or speak to a home care lead. They were certain any concerns would be dealt with in a professional and compassionate manner.
The provider ensured people were supported to have as much choice and control as possible in their lives. They made choices throughout their visits choosing meals, where they would eat, what they would wear etc. Staff also encouraged people to maintain, and if possible, develop their skills to remain independent for as long as possible.
Care was exceptionally person centred. People and their relatives told us they participated in assessments and reviews and had been fully involved. They told us, “We had a full assessment and 2 of our family members were involved and [person’s name]. They do an annual review and someone from the office did that” and “We had an assessment with [home care lead] and with both of us. It was a long assessment and very helpful. [Home care lead] phoned to ask us if we would speak to you too” and “We had a full review of care when I asked for extra care and then an annual review. They came out again after an hospital stay to reassess.”
An annual questionnaire was issued to people and their relatives, and staff members of Bridgewater Care. Feedback was very positive and all areas that needed to be improved were highlighted and addressed by the provider.
The provider ensured people were active participants in both their care and in life. For example, if risk assessed, staff may take a person out to clubs, for a drive or to the shops. Staff had also done this in their own time as they enjoyed spending time with people and providing them with positive experiences. The provider also arranged get togethers for people to attend. Staff would arrange to transport people to the venue for afternoon teas etc. These were very well attended and people expressed they enjoyed them a lot.
The provider’s values were calmness, compassion, dependability, efficiency, freedom, passion, respect and teamwork. Evidence gathered at our assessment confirmed they were achieving these values. Staff were respectful of people, and this was reflected both in conversations about how they could express a person’s needs in less negative way, and in positive feedback from people, relatives and staff members. Staff were proud to work for the service and told us, “To be working with the Bridgwater care team is a wonderful experience, it is warm and welcoming. They are supportive in somany ways. The best company to workwith.” And “One thing I really appreciate is that we are not stressed workers. We know the office team is always there to support us, so we can focus on giving the best possible care to our clients instead of worrying about problems on our own. That supportive environment makes a huge difference to both staff and the people we care for.”
Systems were in place to monitor service provision. Care plans, care records and medicines records were among several areas audited to ensure people were receiving care and treatment as per their arranged care packages.
When concerns were raised, should clarification be needed on new or existing peoples care, meetings were held to discuss how best to support them. Following initial assessments, office staff discussed the new care plan, scheduling and shared information with staff. Any potential problems or risks were discussed and mitigation measures put in place. If things went wrong, accidents or incidents happened or there was an unforeseen event, the provider reviewed and learned from it, sharing the learning amongst the team to minimise a reoccurrence.
People's experience of this service
Following our site visit, an Expert by Experience telephoned people using Bridgewater Care and their relatives to obtain feedback about their experiences.
People were happy with the service provided by Bridgewater Care and gave positive feedback about safety. People felt safe at home and the support they received from Bridgewater Care helped with this. A person told us, “I do feel safe, just them coming in makes me safe”. A relative said, “We have had Bridgewater for several years and they understand us and my [relatives]. The level of care and attention is excellent”. Another person reflected, “I am very safe with them, they are good, very good. They come and see if everything is alright from the office and I can always phone them if I need to.”
There was mixed feedback from people about whether staff were on schedule with their care calls. Some people told us they always received a phone call either from staff or office staff should they be running late, other people told us they were not warned staff were running late. People told us they would also prefer a more regular time slot for their care call which was often not possible due to high demand for the service at certain times. They told us, “If the carers are going to be late then someone will phone me, but it would be nice to have a time when they come in the morning which could be 10.15 sometimes or even 11.15 it’s not very consistent”. A second person said, “They are quite good with times but if they are going to be late then someone will usually phone” A relative told us, “If they are late, they don’t usually call and [relative] has had to call a few times to find out where the carer is”.
We also received a great deal of feedback about staff. However, people did want to have smaller teams of care staff who attended to them more regularly. For example, “We do have a lot of different carers, and some are hard to understand. We haven’t been with them that long though so hopefully we will have more consistent care. They do come at the right time, and we know who is coming as they send out an email rota for us.” However, another relative told us, “[Person] has regular carers and they send me a rota each week, I usually know who the carers are. If there is a new carer coming, then they always shadow people they know first.” A second person wanted a smaller team of carers telling us, “I have the same carers for a while and then a different team come in… I would really like to have 3 or 4 who I know well but I haven’t asked them because they have been so good and I don’t want to upset them.” Another person liked the variety of their carers saying, “I have different carers all the time. They are all very different from different backgrounds and I like that, it’s interesting for me and it suits me”.
People told us staff were well trained and knew how to provide safe care. One relative told us, “They stick rigidly by the rules, for example with hoisting. I know [person] is safe with them and they know what they are doing. They do understand dementia.” Another said, “[Person] had falls and had deteriorated. The care lead came out and assessed them again and highlighted issues and things that needed to be changed. They support me to support [person]. The care lead also came out and did an unannounced spot check on the carer.”
People told us they participated in an assessment process and had been involved in planning their care. They said, “We had a full assessment when we started a few years ago and now, they review the care plan every 6 months, we had 1 [a review] last week.” Another person told us, “We have very good communication and detailed care reviews looking at care provision, medication and everything else. We work together as a team, and it works very well”. Though reviews took place annually, people were not obliged to participate. One person said, “They asked me in 2024 and 2025 for an appointment for a review, but I told them I didn’t need a review, everything is alright!”
The provider ensured people’s health needs were monitored and with the person’s consent, any concerns were shared with a family carer or healthcare professionals. We asked people and their relatives about how well their healthcare needs had been managed by the provider and they said, “Nothing they have had to deal with but they do record everything, every little bruise, [person] has never had any pressure sores in their care, they have spotted UTIs” and “We haven’t had anything serious but if there are any concerns at all then the office contacts me.” A third relative said, “Carers will call the district nurses for infections and small issues. I am confident in letting them raise health issues directly, but I do like to be informed. They will call the paramedics and then advise me of the situation.”
People and relatives were happy with the staff who supported them. They told us, ““I couldn’t manage without them, I don’t know how I would survive without them. They talk to me and they are so supportive” and “I am very pleased with what they provide, I would just like the same carer most days.”
People were also happy with a phone app they could use to access care rotas and notes which they also used to message the provider. Relatives were particularly happy with it, telling us, “The app is really useful. If we go away, I can log onto the app and I can use text messages to keep in touch.” They also praised the provider for their flexibility and ability to assist in an emergency saying, “They are really flexible and have always given us emergency care when we have needed it” and “It’s such a good agency. [Person] lives very near to the office and I had a problem once with helping with a care task, the agency said just phone, and we’ll pop in and help.”
We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about office-based staff. They told us, “I pop into the office sometimes and the staff are all very friendly and know who I am. I am very comfortable talking to anyone in the office”. And “The care manager is a superstar. I message them with anything I need; I message directly and [person] does too. The staff at the Agency will always do everything that they can to support, even over very small issues”.
Overall, most feedback received was very positive with the only exceptions being people wanting smaller care teams to support their loved ones.