Bridge House Residential Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We spoke with people and their relatives about the care and support provided. One person told, “I like the staff, they are good to me. People’s relatives also said, “The staff are very busy, but they are kind and caring”, “The staff are very friendly when we are there”, “The carers are nice and the care is great” and “The regular staff know us, it makes a difference. [Staff member] knows everything about everyone.

For those people not able to tell us about their experiences, we spent time observing interactions between people and staff. We found staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs. Interactions were good humoured, polite and encouraging. Staff spoke about people in a dignified and respectful way and were able to demonstrate how they delivered person centred care.

We noticed how busy staff were at times, which limited the amount of interaction they could provide to people. From our observations staff worked hard to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. Where assistance was required this was delivered in a patient and unhurried manner.

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 and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were able to follow routines of their own choosing. Whilst some people preferred spending time in communal areas, others preferred the privacy of their own rooms. This was reflected in people’s records. One person told they preferred one of the smaller lounges as they enjoyed activities of they personally preferred. They told us new seating was being purchased so they would be more comfortable.

People’s protected characteristics were respected. Staff took care to understand and meet people personal needs and preferences, ensuring they were able to live their life in the way they chose.

Records reflected when people had been supported with areas of personal care including oral care. Those people able to do things for themselves, were encouraged to do so. People had access to equipment to help promote and enable them to maintain their independence and movement around the home.

Staff encouraged and supported people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

It was recognised further improvement could be made in the activities and opportunities offered to people. This was supported by people’s relatives.

Records showed and we observed some activities taking place. We saw a visiting physiotherapist encouraging people to take part in gentle exercises, others took part in ball games with staff. A review records showed other activities had been provided such as quizzes, bingo, dominoes and painting. One person enjoyed doing a word search, whilst another person liked to use their iPad.

Following our visit, we were informed the new manager was also exploring community groups and opportunities available to people outside of the home. Further staff appointments had also been made to support this area so that more meaningful opportunities could be provided, exploring people’s hobbies and interests.

Records showed some people took part in activities away from home, perhaps going for a walk or out with family. People’s rights to family life were encouraged and respected. There was an open visiting policy, which was confirmed by people’s relatives, who said they could visit any time and were made welcome.

The provider did not always listen to and understand 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.

People were able to follow routines of their own choosing. Whilst some people preferred spending time in communal areas, others preferred the privacy of their own rooms. It was recognised there was a lack of meaningful activities and opportunities available to people. Additional staff had been recruited to help develop these further.

From our observations people’s requests for help were made verbally as they had no access to call bells. Staff responded appropriately offering reassurance and encouragement. However, due to the needs of some people and considering the size and layout of the building staff were not always present in communal areas as they were busy supporting in other areas. This meant they were not always readily available to respond to people.

People’s relatives did say they were kept informed if their family member was unwell or needed to be taken to hospital. We were told, “When [relative] was very poorly they kept me updated regularly”, “They do always phone me if there is an issue and keep me up to date with any changes” and “They keep in touch with me if there are any changes in medication or if [relative] is poorly.

The provider did not always care about and promote the well-being of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

There had been continual changes in the management of the home, which has impacted on the well-being of staff. Some staff felt the number of senior managers visiting the service was at times unsettling. Some staff felt certain managers were more helpful than others. We were made aware an interim manager was new to supporting the home. Staff spoken with felt the manager was starting to make a positive impact. Staff said this had helped to improve morale. Some staff felt the team was supportive of each other and there was good teamwork. Staff said there had been a reduction in agency staff and “The team is working better together.” Staff felt more permanent stable management would help to improve communication and provide better direction for staff.

We saw information provided in the clinical newsletters also included staff well-being with links to information or agencies to support people with work related stress.