We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bridge House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bridge House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• We found robust infection control procedures were in place. Cleaning had been increased to ensure high touch surfaces were cleaned regularly and additional cleaning was taking place to maintain good hygiene standards.
• Staff were observed wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Sufficient supplies of PPE were in place. Staff received training in infection prevention and control measures and appropriate use of PPE. A room near to the front entrance and exit of the home had been adapted into a donning and doffing area for staff and visitors to use. The area contained hand washing facilities and clinical waste bins. There were posters and information about COVID-19 on display throughout the home.
• Systems were in place to prevent visitors from catching and spreading infections. At the time of our inspection due to the national government lockdown the home had decided to stop all visits to the home. This had been discussed at length with all relatives and the people who lived in the home. Plans were in place to separate an area of the conservatory with a perspex screen. This would mean visitors to the home would not have to enter the main building keeping people safe.
• Staff supported people to maintain contact with their family and friends, by phone, social media and video calling, when they were unable to visit. The registered manager and staff remained in contact with people’s loved ones. They provided regular updates in relation to people’s wellbeing. The management team had set up a relative’s social media group chat to keep relatives updated regarding news at the home. A WI-FI booster system had been purchased to improve connectivity. This meant people could communicate with loved ones.
• People that lived in the home and the staff had their temperatures taken daily. This helped the management team to monitor people and staff’s wellbeing and was an indicator of changes in wellbeing.
• The registered manager told us if people were admitted to the home, risk assessments were completed, and people were isolated for 14 days. During this isolation period, staff would be allocated to people on a one to one basis, to provide personal care and support.
• The home took part in regular testing for COVID-19. Staff were tested weekly, and people who lived at the home were tested monthly. The registered manager told us they maintained a spreadsheet of the dates staff and people were last tested.
• Within the lounge and dining areas chairs and tables had been moved to support social distancing. This meant people could still spend time in communal areas and enjoy each other’s company. Desks and chairs within the manager’s office had been distanced 2 metres apart to comply with guidance.
• The registered manager told us they were well supported by the local GP. The home had community nurses who supported them.
Bridge House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 16 people who require help with personal care. The service specialises in the care of older people but does not provide nursing care. At the time of our visit there were 16 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
People using the service said they felt safe and that staff and the registered manager treated them well. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported from abuse. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available for staff and they told us they would use it if they needed to.
Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe and risks associated with people's care needs had been assessed.
There were processes in place to ensure the premises and equipment were regularly checked and to manage the prevention and control of infection. The registered manager reviewed accidents and falls to ensure people had the right support to keep them safe. People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals, medicines were securely stored, and the administration of medicines was recorded appropriately.
Recruitment of employees was robust with good record keeping and checks including DBS and ID procedures. These checks ensure that staff are not barred from working with vulnerable people and have a right to work in the UK. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.
Staff had received training to meet the needs of people using the service. They had also received regular supervision and an appraisal of their work performance. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and the people who used the service chose their meals and these were provided in line with their preferences. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other health care professionals to maintain their health and well-being.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people's independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and friends.
Visitors were made to feel welcome. People were supported to practice their faith.
People had personalised care plans, which detailed how they wanted staff to meet their individual needs. Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs, in the service and within the local community.
The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. The provider had a quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, relatives and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service through meetings and surveys.
There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Bridge House is a family run business. The provider and the registered manager were very visible in the service and operated an open door policy.
This inspection was brought forward because we had received concerns about how people we being supported especially at night when there was only one member of staff providing sleep in cover. The provider and registered manager had developed a robust plan to change the sleeping to a waking night before we completed the inspection. Waking night cover was being introduced from the 31 May 2016. In the interim the sleep in staff were supporting a person throughout the night in a consistent way ensuring their safety.
People were receiving care that was responsive and effective and tailored to their needs. Care plans were in place that described how each person would like to be supported. There were some areas that required more information to guide staff. However, it was clear the staff were consistent in their approach and knew how people liked to be supported. Other health and social professionals were involved in the care of the people. Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management. There were suitable recruitment processes to ensure only suitable staff were employed to support people.
Staff were caring and supportive and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles in supporting people. Staff received training and support that was relevant to their roles. Training was planned for staff on supporting people living with dementia. Systems were in place to ensure open communication including team meetings and one to one meetings with their manager.
People’s rights were upheld, consent was always sought before any support was given. Staff were aware of the legislation that ensured people were protected in respect of decision making and any restrictions and how this impacted on their day to day roles.
People’s views were sought through care reviews, meetings and acted upon. Regular activities were organised for people. People’s cultural and religious were being met in an individualised way. Systems were in place to ensure that complaints were responded to and, learnt from to improve the service provided.
The service was committed to involve relatives in aspects of running the service. Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on visiting times.
People were provided with a safe, effective, caring and responsive service that was well led. The values and philosophy were clearly explained to staff. Systems were in place to review the quality of the service identifying areas for improvement.
People living at the home told us "The thing I like about the meals here are they are very traditional, served warm and fresh' and 'I have no complaints about the food, we all eat very well' and 'We have lots of choice here, the meals are lovely'.
People were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint where they needed assistance. People living in the home told us "If I had a complaint I would tell my family and the staff here' and 'I would talk to the manager if I was unhappy'.
We spoke with three staff, they told us they felt supported by senior staff in the home. Staff told us "We have a lovely staff team here and all work together' and 'The manager is very supportive and offers us regular training opportunities'.
People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. We found very good standards of cleaning. Bedrooms were checked and were found to be clean, tidy and odour free.
We were able to speak with a visitor to the home. They told us 'I'm very happy with my relatives care here, their mobility has improved 100% and their now socialising with others and happy' and 'Staff are so friendly and welcoming here'.
People confirmed that staff listened to them and acted appropriately to their requests. One person said "The home and staff are lovely here and they cannot do enough for me'. Another person said, 'I am able to make choices about what i'd like to wear, and what food I'd like to eat from the menu'.
.
The provider did not have effective systems in place to assess, plan and deliver care to meet people's individual needs and to ensure their welfare and safety. We have asked them to make improvements to ensure people are safe.
The provider did not maintain appropriate standards of hygiene and cleanliness with the home and did not follow infection control guidelines.