Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Bridge Court Bungalow

Goodpublished 31 December 2019, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visits and outbreak management. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Effective?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2022

Bridge Court Bungalow was inspected but not rated; inspectors found robust infection control and safe staffing arrangements.

This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.

The home was assured on infection control. Inspectors found good cleaning, effective use of protective equipment, regular testing, vaccinations, and arrangements for visits, admissions and managing outbreaks.

Staff worked flexibly to cover shifts and keep the home safely staffed. The service was marked “Inspected but not rated”, so this report does not give a new overall rating or a full rating for all five areas.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    The home had systems to manage the risk of infection, supported by quality checks and staff training.

    “The systems in place to oversee and manage the risks of cross infection were robust.” from the report
  • Staffing teamwork

    Staff worked flexibly together and covered shifts so the home remained safely staffed.

    “Staff worked well together to meet people's needs.” from the report
  • Cleaning and protective equipment

    Inspectors found good cleaning arrangements, regular testing, vaccinations and good supplies of protective equipment.

    “Good cleaning procedures were in place. People and staff participated in regular testing and all had received their Covid-19 vaccinations.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are staffing pressures managed now, and how do you make sure shifts remain safely covered?
  2. 02How often are people living here and staff tested for infections, and what happens if someone tests positive?
  3. 03How are visits arranged now, including visits during an outbreak?
  4. 04How do you check that staff use protective equipment safely and that cleaning remains effective?
  5. 05What arrangements are in place to prevent and manage an infection outbreak?

This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2019

Bridge Court Bungalow was rated Good overall, with safe, kind and person-centred care found across all five areas.

This was a planned inspection on 15 and 20 November 2019. One inspector reviewed care, medicine and management records, spoke with people using the home, family members, an advocate and staff, and gathered information from other sources.

The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were stored and given safely, and there were enough trained staff. People's needs were assessed, care was personalised, and staff promoted choice, dignity and independence.

People were supported to stay healthy, take part in activities and keep relationships. The home had systems for complaints, quality checks and feedback. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in April 2017.

What inspectors praised
  • Good staffing and safety

    There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with recruitment checks and relevant training in place. Risks, safeguarding and medicines were managed appropriately.

    “There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people.” from the report
  • Respect and kindness

    Staff treated people with dignity and compassion. They supported personal choices and independence in everyday activities.

    “People and family members told us staff were kind and considerate.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care records described people's preferences, communication needs and individual goals. Staff supported people to make choices about their lives.

    “Care records were regularly reviewed, they included important information about the person and were person-centred.” from the report
  • Building confidence

    Staff helped people take part in activities and overcome anxiety about new experiences. Inspectors gave examples of people becoming more socially active and managing trips away.

    “There were numerous examples of how staff had improved the confidence of people who had previously been socially isolated.” from the report
  • Open management

    The manager and staff understood their responsibilities, welcomed feedback and used quality checks and action plans to improve the service.

    “The provider and registered manager monitored the quality of the service to make sure they delivered a high standard of care.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How would you assess and record my relative's needs before they moved in?
  2. 02How would you support my relative's communication needs and personal choices?
  3. 03What activities and community opportunities would be available to help my relative stay active and avoid isolation?
  4. 04How would you support my relative with medicines, healthcare appointments and any dietary needs?
  5. 05How can families give feedback or raise a complaint, and how would it be investigated?

This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Bridge Court Bungalow

3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Bridge Court Bungalow →

  2. December 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Bridge Court Bungalow →

  3. April 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. February 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £980 to £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
Roy A., about Alison G.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Judith W., about Petty Tutsirai C.
See live-in carers near Redcar and ClevelandProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.