Bridgwater Court

Updated 21 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 04 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 21 April 2021

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 16 October 2017.

Bridgwater Court is a two storey modern property. It offers individual accommodation and care in single occupancy flats. The home is registered for up to 12 people who may have a Learning Disability and Mental Health difficulties. All of the flats are furnished to meet individual choices. There is a communal hallway which provides access to all the flats. The ground floor flats are accessible to those people who have mobility and access problems.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the service was rated Good. However two domains had been rated requires improvement and the service should have been rated as Requires Improvement overall. This inspection had been brought forward to check on the progress of the service. .

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At the last inspection people told us they did not feel safe, relatives said they felt staff were young and lacked experience. There was a high staff turnover and people lacked consistency of care. At this inspection everybody spoken with told us they felt safe living at Bridgwater Court both with other people living there and the staff team. We saw a successful recruitment programme had been carried out. This meant people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them, well.

At the last inspection we found that although there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided these were not being used effectively to drive improvement. People and relatives did not feel listened to. At this inspection we found people felt staff and management listened to them. The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided were being used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement.

There was not a registered manager in post, however an application for the manager to be registered with the Care Quality Commission had been submitted and was being processed. 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.

People felt safe at the home. They told us they trusted staff and knew other people living in the home well. One person said, “This is the place I feel safe and I don’t want to go anywhere else.”

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

Staff supported people to manage risk through education and discussing risk with them. They agreed ways with people to enable them to manage their own risk enabling them to access the community safely.

People received effective support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People told us they thought staff knew them well and understood their individual needs.

Staff received an in-depth induction before they worked with people. The induction included training in identifying behaviours that might challenge and how to recognise individual triggers.

Staff were passionate about ensuring people’s human rights were upheld and ensured their choices, decisions and goals were respected.

People received support from caring and kind staff. Staff were openly proud of the achievements people had made and clearly had a very good relationship with the people they supported.

The service was responsive and people were supported to make progress and achieve goals set by them so they could lead the life they aspired to. Staff looked at creative and innovative ways to ensure the support people received was responsive to their individual needs.

The service was well led. There were systems in place to assess and drive improvement that were embedded in the way the service was run. People and their relatives had an active say in the way the service ran and people were involved in day to day decisions and staff recruitment.

Staff said they felt supported by a management team that was open to suggestion and always approachable.