Bridge House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has to requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Leaders had not always had the knowledge and skills, to effectively lead, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had not had a registered manager since May 2023. Three further appointments had been made since that time, however they were unsuccessful. At the time of our visit the new manager had been in post 4 weeks. Whilst some staff felt positive about the change others had some anxieties about further change. Not everyone we spoke with was aware there was a new manager. However, some people told us, “I know the manager and she is excellent”, “I have met her, and she is nice” and “Yes, she is friendly, and the home has more go in it.”

The manager was aware staff morale was poor and needed to be improved. They spent time working with staff, helping to understand the needs of the service. This had recently included a weekend overnight stay. One staff member told us, “[Manager] helps out, so she knows how we manage.”

The local authority and CQC had not always been kept up to date and information requests had not always been timely. The manager was aware of their responsibilities and being open and transparent about events within the home.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Some staff felt they had not always been able to speak up about their concerns. One staff member said, “We were not always supported, and we were scared to speak. The new manager is alright. She knows her job, but it will take time.”

The manager was reintroducing regular team meetings and individual supervisions providing staff with an opportunity to share their views and raise any issues, should they need to. Some staff spoke with felt more positive about the management change. One staff told us, “I feel able to speak out. I feel like this place is getting better, so I am happy to work more.”

However, others felt past experiences needed to be recognised so that lessons could be learnt and morale improved. One staff member told us, “[Manager] said they are not bothered by what happened in the past. I am bothered. The pressure on staff and the poor care was very upsetting."

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. However, systems needed to be implemented and further embedded providing better management and oversight of the service. This should include the involvement of people, stakeholders and staff.

The provider had an organisational management structure which included the nominated individual, area managers, regional managers and a clinical governance team. Each had responsibilities in monitoring and supporting the provider homes. Evidence of senior management checks and reports were requested however these were not provided.

Audits and checks were in place exploring a range of areas in relation to care, health and safety and staffing. The manager was currently familiarising herself with the governance systems so these could be better utilised to support and develop the service.

The service had recently been assessed by the local authority quality monitoring team. Actions identified had been used to inform the homes improvement plan. The manager acknowledged action was needed to improve the service.

The manager was aware of their responsibilities to notify CQC and the local authority of any events affecting the health and well-being of people living at Bridge House.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider needed to show how staff were supported and encouraged to continuously learn and improve, so people received a good quality of life.

Areas of learning and improvement were identified within the monthly management meetings. Information was cascaded to home managers, including guidance on best practice or additional training. It was unclear how this had been shared with the staff team to help and promote their learning.

In relation to learning from accidents and incidents the manager had introduced a briefing file. This signposted staff to action required by the team to help prevent further incidents. A review of the file showed this included policy information for staff to read and acknowledge their understanding. The was no further information to show managers had checked staff knowledge and understanding of the procedures and what was expected of them.

As already identified, staff had not always been encouraged to speak up about issues or ideas and feel actively listened to. The manager was implementing better channels of communication, such as phone messaging group and team meetings, so information is shared and responded to.