Bridge Haven

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The management and oversight of the service remained consistent. The provider had maintained oversight when there had been changes of management within the service. There was an open culture within the service and staff were supported to raise concerns and speak up. The service continued to make improvements to the service and work with other healthcare professionals.

This service scored 75 (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 had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider had a philosophy of care in place which staff were expected to follow. Staff described this as person centred, valuing people, involving people, and getting people’s consent. They also described how they support people to be as independent as possible and to continue to do things they had done in the past.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness, and honesty. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. A member of the management team visited the service regularly at night to chair staff meetings and check staff were working as expected. New staff completed an induction when they began working at the service. This included training and shadowing experienced staff to get to know people and the service. Staff had completed the provider’s online and face to face training and told us they felt competent to fulfil their roles. Staff met regularly with a manager to discuss their practice, goals, and achievements. Staff told us they had been supported to develop in their role and achieve recognised qualifications in care.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Processes were in operation to support staff to raise any concerns they had. The management team had an ‘open door’ policy and staff told us they could speak to a member of the management team whenever they wanted. The registered manager had implemented monthly coffee mornings where staff could also share any concerns. Staff knew how to whistle blow inside and outside of the service and were confident the management team and provider would act to keep people safe. Information about how to raise concerns were displayed around the service and staff knew they could contact the provider to raise safeguarding concerns at any time. People were invited to share their views at regular meetings. They had shared their feedback on activities, food, and drinks and how safe they felt. They had made suggestions about activities, and these were being explored. Minutes of the meeting showed everyone was confident to raise any concerns they had with the staff.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff were treated equally and with respect. The leadership team had worked hard to support people and staff to understand staffs’ diverse cultural backgrounds. This included putting on African and Indian days where staff dressed up in their preferred dress and prepared meals. Staff told us they had enjoyed sharing their culture with others and learning about other cultures. Staff told us, “It was a beautiful day” and “Everyone was included.” The registered manager told us, ‘It is made known that discrimination will not be accepted. As issues have been highlighted to me or when I have seen certain staff not working together, I will address it there and then.”’ The provider had policies to promote equality and diversity. All staff were required to complete diversity training.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. There was a programme of internal and external audits and checks to monitor the quality of the service provided. This included ensuring the registered manager had oversight of all incidents or accidents. Significant events were rated and those with a highest rating also had oversight from the regional manager or executive team as appropriate. Each time a person fell an analysis took place of the circumstances around the event. Actions to minimise the risk of the event occurring again were discussed and the GP informed as appropriate. The provider’s last external audit which took place for 3 days, was carried out in March 2024. A continuous learning plan had been developed which highlighted shortfalls and most of these had been completed at the time of our assessment. The provider undertook regular spot checks to make sure these actions were taken to make the necessary improvements. The provider had put strategies in place to recruit staff and reduce the use of agency staff who did not know people as well. This included paying a premium to staff who covered extra shifts and financial rewards for staff who recommended a new employee.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The management team and staff were aware of the professionals available to support them. Staff worked with the GP and district nurses to promote learning and undertake reviews when concerns had been raised. The management team had access to guidance and information from both local and national forums and groups. The provider supported the service by ensuring current guidance was available. People were supported to be part of their local community. For example, during our assessment people visited a local nursery school to listen to the children singing carols, other children visited people at the service.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. The provider looked inside and outside of the organisation to explore possible improvements. For example, some people were taking part in a project to assess if having reduced levels of caffeine had a positive impact on their sleep and wellbeing. This had been planned with people’s GP and caffeine levels had been gradually reduced. The impact on people’s sleep was being monitored to see if reduced caffeine was effective. The service practiced the ‘Eden Alternative’ care model which aimed to ‘eradicate loneliness, isolation and boredom in the care environment’ and support people to have a meaningful life. People and relatives had been involved in validating if the philosophy was being implemented at the service. A piece of work had been undertaken with regards to falls and near misses within the service. A falls prevention forum had been set up for the staff team to discuss what can trigger a person to fall and how staff can be more vigilant. Any lessons learned were shared with the whole staff team. The provider had identified there were specific times of the day when people were prone to falling without an injury. To help minimise these events, extra staff were deployed in communal areas at these times as much as was possible.