Bridge House

People were safe and were protected by staff who understood their responsibilities and how to keep them safe. People were protected from risks by very detailed, regularly updated risk assessments. The provider encouraged staff to be innovative and empowered them to access additional training and professional development. Safe recruitment practices were followed. There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Staff received training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. However, we found some gaps in mandatory training and some areas of the homes needed updating and maintenance. We discussed this with the provider, who took immediate action to address these concerns.

People had comprehensive care plans which detailed their strengths and promoted their dignity and independence. Their communication needs were assessed and recorded in detail and staff interacted appropriately with people according to their needs. People were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent

People received a personalised, caring service. People told us they received very kind and respectful support from staff who promoted their abilities, knew them well and genuinely wanted good outcomes for them. There was a positive working atmosphere and people and staff had good, caring relationships. Staff spoke passionately about the people they supported and worked to uphold their rights The service achieved positive outcomes for people through attentive care, understanding and responsiveness to the needs people communicated to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that are co- ordinated and responsive. Where people needs changed the provider has systems in place to record the changes which were then communicated to the staff team. This enabled the staff to be up to date in relation to people’s changing needs and continuity of care could be provided. We saw evidence that people regularly accessed GP and other community health services.

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.