Bridge House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This service scored 57 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Whilst people’s care records outlined their individual care needs, more person centred information was needed about people’s life, interests and their likes and dislikes. This information helps staff better understand people’s routines and how they wish to be supported.

Records did not show how people and those important to them had been involved in developing their care and support. We were told, “We weren’t given any choice in care home, [relative] was just sent to this one. No, we’ve never had a review or seen a care plan” and “I haven’t seen anyone who would do a review of care.”

Observations of staff were positive. Interactions were polite and staff were patient offering encouragement and support.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff told us they worked closely with health care teams, people and their families so that people received care and support that met their individual needs. From our observations we saw staff knew people well and responded appropriately to people’s requests for help.

To help provide continuity in care, daily handover meetings were held when shifts changed. Records outlined people’s basic needs, with additional information recorded by day and night staff so relevant information was shared across the team. We found little feedback was recorded about people’s, particularly at night. Feedback from staff supported this view.

Daily flash meeting had also been introduced and discussions recorded. We were told there was no set time, generally taking place later in the afternoon rather than mornings, when time could be allocated to deal with any matters arising.

The local authority continued to monitor and review the service in line with their commissioning arrangements.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Whilst the provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standards. We found information, such as recent feedback surveys were not provided in an easy read format. Whilst people’s communication needs were recorded. We were also aware people were not provided with a copy of their care plan in format they could understand.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints procedure, which was due to be reviewed in January 2026. We were aware of concerns which had been raised with the provider. Records had been completed to show what action had been taken.

We asked people and their relatives if they knew who they could speak with if they had any issues or concerns. One person told us, “I’m quite happy thanks, I speak to the carers.” People’s relatives said they would speak up however were not always sure who with. Comments included; “Never been given any information about how to complain or who to go to. I just go to [staff member] and sometimes it gets done and sometimes not” and “I don’t know anything about the manager, if I had a problem I would just go to the office.”

We saw other opportunities for people and their relatives to share their views had been provided, although infrequent. A recent resident and relatives meeting had been held however there was low attendance and feedback surveys had been distributed in September 2025.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Consideration was required to ensure the provider fully met people’s needs in this area. Activities and opportunities outside the home were not routinely available. Best practice guidance, particularly for people living with dementia, highlights the importance of people having access to outdoor spaces and fresh air. Although level access was in provided, leading to a secure garden area, we did not observe this space being used except by people who smoked. We were told that garden furniture was available, however, it was not arranged in a way that made it easy for people to use.

As already identified, work was needed to create a more dementia‑friendly environment, helping people orientate themselves and supporting them to remain as independent as possible.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People’s rights to fair and equal treatment were upheld. Their protected characteristics were respected, and care was delivered in line with their individual needs and preferences.

Staff completed training in equality and diversity as part of the online training programme. This training aims to promote fairness, respect, and inclusion for everyone. Information provider in the provider information return (PIR) also stated staff training in sensory loss was provided for staff. We saw no evidence of this. This training would help staff when supporting people in stimulating memory, reducing agitation, and enhancing communication when verbal skills decline.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Peoples care records included an advanced care plan providing some information about their goals and outcomes when there were changes in their health and well-being including their wishes around ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR). However, information about people’s wishes at the end of their life were not seen. Work was being completed to enhance care plans so information was more personalised.

Records showed staff had completed on-line training in and end of life care and said they would liaise with the GP and district nurse team for additional support where someone need additional healthcare support when approaching the end of their life.