- Residential substance misuse service
Archived: The Bridge Project
All Inspections
13 December 2012
During an inspection looking at part of the service
We visited the home on 13 December 2012 to check that the provider had made the improvements which they told us they would. We were accompanied by a pharmacist inspector. We found the provider had failed to take suitable steps to protect people against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for the recording, handling and safe administration of some medicines. We also found that the provider had taken some steps to protect people and staff against the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises, but there were further improvements to be made. We found the service was also non compliant in this area.
We did not speak with people in depth during this inspection, but three people we spoke with told us that they liked living at the service and they liked the staff. One person told us that 'they had no complaints and most people are quite happy living here'. We observed the interaction between staff and people. We saw that members of staff respected people's privacy and dignity and supported people to engage with the Bridge project.
11 July 2012
During a routine inspection
We also asked a pharmacy inspector to accompany us during this visit as we had some concerns about outcome 9: management of medicines.
During our visit we spoke with six people who used the service. We also had the opportunity to meet the new programme manager who had started working at The Bridge Project in March 2012 and was in the process of registering with us. We also spoke with six members of staff.
When we spoke with people who were staying at The Bridge Project we received a number of positive comments about the care they had received. One person told us that "the staff are very good. They are supportive and care about our well being'. Another person told us that 'staff were very supportive. They treat me like a human being and not like a drunk. If you need to talk to somebody there is always someone here. You do not have to wait for key worker'.
People accommodated in this area of the home told us they had chosen the Bridge Project because of 'word of mouth.' They said that people with prior knowledge of the home had told them it was 'good.' They said it was a great service and felt their stay would increase their potential for a good recovery.
We were told that the permanent staff and the regular agency staff were good. They told us their rights to privacy and dignity were respected by these staff, 'nothing' was a problem and that 'they know what we are going through '.
People told us they were handed written information about the service. They signed license agreements and were given copies of the rules, the procedures for breaches of agreement and the 'No Secrets' safeguarding procedures for Bristol City Council.
They told us there was an initial assessment of needs by the Salvation Army specialist doctor and an outreach worker who was a qualified nurse. They said they discussed their treatment and care plan with their key worker. We were told that the groups were challenging and there were plenty of activities.
1 February 2012
During a routine inspection
We were told that the permanent staff and the regular agency staff were good. They told us their rights to privacy and dignity were respected by these staff, 'nothing' was a problem and they were 'proper good people'. However, they said that the night staff that checked on them were not always very sympathetic to their needs. They said they lacked understanding of the needs of people going through withdrawal from drug and alcohol.
People told us they were handed written information about the service. They signed license agreements and were given copies of the rules, the procedures for breaches of agreement and the 'No Secrets' safeguarding procedures for Bristol City Council.
They told us there was an assessment of needs by the Salvation Army specialist doctor and an outreach worker. They said they assumed they had a care plan but had not seen a copy of their plans. We were told that they could be better occupied during the day and the timetable for activities was 'slack.' They said the group work was not very challenging and there were no set routines.
When we asked them about feeling safe, people told us they did not feel safe at all times. They said they felt vulnerable when they came into contact with people from the attached hostel, for example in the community and during meal time. This vulnerability was because people may have had contact with people before going into the unit for treatment. They said their levels of intimidation depended on the relationship that had been built before their admission