Bridge House

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

The service had an open culture. Staff at all levels displayed a desire to provide good quality, person-centred care to people. The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people to ensure the service was tailored to their needs and preferences. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and the safety of the service provided. However, some of these systems needed to be more structured, embedded and sustained to ensure they remained effective.

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.

Staff said people were absolutely at the heart of the service. The management team's primary focus was to develop people's skills and confidence and provide them with the tools needed to live more independently. Staff said the provider worked hard to instil a culture of care in which staff truly valued and promoted people's individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to develop and flourish

The provider had a plan in place which included visions and values for the company which staff were aware of and upheld. The registered manager, management team and staff demonstrated a positive, compassionate, and caring culture which enabled people to experience positive care. Staff had created a culture where people were at the heart of the service and involved in every aspect of their life and this was embedded into the ethos of the service.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. Staff felt supported by the provider who was visible in the service. Staff said they felt respected and valued by senior staff which supported a positive and improvement-driven culture.

Good oversight by the provider meant they were alert to any poor practice that may affect the quality of people’s care and have a detrimental impact on staff. Our findings showed senior staff had the knowledge and/or experience to ensure people always experienced person-centred care.

Staff and managers were able to share their views and felt supported in speaking up and sharing ideas. There were good systems for communication with and support of staff. Staff told us they knew how to speak up and felt confident raising concerns. They told us they were listened to, and their views were respected.

There were processes for staff to speak up and tell the provider and others if something was wrong. Staff had training to understand about this. There were opportunities for staff to raise concerns anonymously. Feedback was gathered and action from feedback was taken to drive improvements. There were policies in place on whistleblowing and staff were aware of how to whistle blow should the need arise.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. They said the service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear.

The provider had policies and procedures in place regarding equality diversity and inclusion. Staff were provided with contracts of employment which gave them information about their rights and expectations as an employee.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

The service had an open culture. Staff at all levels displayed a desire to provide good quality, person-centred care to people. The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people to ensure the service was tailored to their needs and preferences. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and the safety of the service provided. However, some of these systems needed to be more structured, embedded and sustained to ensure they remained effective. For example, staff training, the management of risk within the enviroment and infection prevention and control.

People told us their lives had changed for the better since moving into Bridge House and they would not choose to live anywhere else.

Staff told us that a variety of health and social care professionals were involved in supporting people.

We received positive feedback from partners and stakeholders. They told us the service worked collaboratively with them and they had no concerns for peoples welfare.

The provider was transparent and collaborative with all relevant external stakeholders and agencies. It worked in partnership with key organisations and healthcare professionals to support care provision, service development and joined-up care. Records showed the provider also worked closely in partnership with the safeguarding team and multidisciplinary teams to support safe care provision. Advice was sought, and referrals were made in a timely manner which allowed continuity of care.

Staff told us the provider encouraged them to be innovative and empowered them to access additional training and professional development.

The management team were proactive in using information from audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding alerts to improve the service. The managers worked with staff to understand how things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions.