Bridgemead

Updated 9 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 April 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we had about the service including statutory notifications. Notifications are information about specific events that the service is legally required to send us.

Some people at the service may not be able to tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods such as undertaking observations to help us understand people’s experiences of the home. As part of our observations we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the needs of people who could not speak with us.

During the inspection we spoke with six people living at the service and four people who attended the service during the day. We also spoke with six relatives, five members of staff including the registered manager. We received feedback from two health and social care professionals. We reviewed seven people’s care and support records and seven staff files. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such as incident and accident records, meeting minutes, recruitment and training records, policies, audits and complaints.

Updated 9 June 2018

We undertook an unannounced inspection of Bridgemead on 17 April 2018. At the last comprehensive inspection of the service in January 2017 six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were identified. These were in relation to fit and proper person employed, safe care and treatment, need for consent, staffing, person centred care and good governance. The service was rated as Requires Improvement.

During this inspection we checked that the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations they had breached. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspections, by selecting the 'All reports' link for Bridgemead, on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Bridgemead is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Bridgemead can provide care and nursing support for up to 32 older people, some whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people living at the service.

The service provides accommodation in purpose built premises. The building had a unique and interesting design. A large communal dining and seated area was available to people with big windows, a conservatory and rooftop garden. People enjoyed the location of the service and the views to the river. People told us how the light, space and scenery from the building enhanced their well-being.

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.

At this inspection we found that the service had made improvements. The previous breaches in regulations had been met. Recruitment checks were in place which ensured the provider’s recruitment policy was followed. People’s care plans had been enriched. Care plans contained details around people’s preferences, backgrounds and routines. Where people had specific needs care plans were in place to support these. Supervision and training to support staff in their roles was up to date and occurring regularly. Quality assurance systems were now in place but needed further development in the details provided in order to drive quality improvement. This had already been identified by the provider.

We received mixed feedback about the staffing levels at the service. People said sometimes they had to wait for staff to be available. We made a recommendation in regards to recording best interest decisions in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice.

People said they could retain their independence by moving around the service, helping themselves to drinks and snacks and coming and going as they pleased. However, a few people commented that their independence could be further promoted by the service. Details about people’s end of life wishes were limited in care records. Care records had been reviewed monthly.

Staff had developed good relationships with people. People told us that staff were kind, caring and polite. People’s privacy and choices were respected by staff. Visiting was unrestricted. Friends and family were welcomed at the service. There were different areas for people to spend time with their loved ones in private and communal areas.

People spoke positively about the range of activities facilitated by the service and the regular outings available to them. The service had a Christian ethos, but people from any faith group were welcomed. The service had links with local religious establishments, a weekly service and a daily ‘quiet time’ where prayers and hymns were observed. ‘Friends of Bridgemead’ arranged social events and fundraising activities. Coffee mornings were held with the manager and people said they could express their views and opinions.

The food provided by the service was spoken highly of. Mealtimes were relaxed and sociable. People had individual choices about where they ate their meal, the portion size and how their meal was served. The building and environment was clean and well maintained. Regular health and safety and fire checks were undertaken.

Staff, people and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager was approachable and responded to feedback. Systems were in place to communicate effectively. For example, through staff handovers and newsletters to people. Feedback was sought through meetings and questionnaires. Actions were taken in response to suggestions made.