CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bridge Haven
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Bridge Haven: inspected but not rated; inspectors found enough staff and good infection controls, but recruitment checks were incomplete.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 2 December 2020. Inspectors looked at concerns about staffing, the management of a COVID-19 outbreak among staff, infection control and how the home was led. They spoke with one resident, one relative and six staff, observed care and checked records.
People said they felt safe and were happy living at the home. Inspectors found enough staff, quick responses to call bells and positive relationships between staff and residents. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, and infection prevention measures, including the use of PPE and cleaning, were found to be effective.
There was one area for improvement. Two of four staff recruitment files did not show that gaps in employment history had been identified or addressed. The manager agreed to investigate this. The home had regular audits and action plans to address shortfalls.
The home was inspected but not rated at this visit. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 31 July 2018. This inspection did not review all parts of the service, so it did not change the previous ratings.
Staffing levels
There were enough staff to meet residents' needs. Staff were not rushed and had time to talk with people and support activities.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and the manager worked with the local authority safeguarding team when concerns arose.
“Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe and knew how to report any concerns.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed social-distancing and shielding rules, tested residents and staff, and had measures to manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management checks
The home used regular audits, daily handovers and an improvement plan to monitor safety and follow up problems.
“Regular audits were completed to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Relationships
Residents told inspectors they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors observed positive interactions between staff and residents.
“There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere and people and staff had forged positive relationships.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo of the four recruitment files checked did not show that gaps in employment history had been identified or addressed. The manager agreed to investigate and correct this.
“The two staff files, completed by the provider's head office, had not identified or addressed gaps in staff member's employment history.” from the report
Accessible information
minorThe home was signposted to resources to improve how information was provided, including using an easy-to-read format.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach to make sure people received information in a way that suited them best, such as an easy to read format.” from the report
- 01Have the gaps in employment history found in two staff files now been investigated and addressed?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when staff are absent or agency staff are needed?
- 03What is the home's current plan for preventing and managing a COVID-19 or other infection outbreak?
- 04How will information be provided in an easy-to-read format for residents who need it?
- 05How are actions from audits and the continuous improvement plan checked to make sure they are completed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, a COVID-19 outbreak, infection control and leadership; it did not review all five key questions or change the previous Good ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 2020 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Bridge Haven was rated Good overall, but inspectors found care records were not always detailed enough and rated the service Requires Improvement for responsiveness.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 7 June 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, medicines, a meal and activities, and checked care plans, staffing, medicines, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for being well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, kind and respectful care, suitable training, good food and regular checks on quality and safety.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsiveness. People generally received the support they needed, but some care plans did not record changes, risks or clear instructions for staff. The manager acted during and immediately after the inspection to update these records. The previous breach about medicines had been put right.
Medicines were safer
The home had corrected the medicines problems found at the previous inspection. Records were complete, medicines were dated when opened, and staff had training and competency checks.
“At this inspection we found that medicines were now managed safely and in the way people preferred.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were safe and met people's needs. Rotas matched the staff on duty, and staffing was adjusted for activities and appointments.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's individual needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, personal way. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“People responded well to staff and looked comfortable in their company.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People gave very positive feedback about the choice and quality of food. Staff understood dietary needs, preferences and ways to support people at risk of weight loss.
“Throughout the inspection we received entirely positive feedback about the quality, nutritional value and choice of food served.” from the report
Active management
The manager and senior staff carried out regular checks, reviewed incidents and complaints, and involved people, relatives and staff in improvements.
“Regular audits and checks were undertaken at the service to make sure it was safe and running effectively.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not show changes in people's needs, all risk-reduction measures or clear instructions for staff. The manager updated documents during and just after the inspection, but this was the reason for the Requires Improvement rating for responsiveness.
“some care plans were not updated to reflect events, show all the measures aimed at reducing risk, or provide appropriate guidance for staff.” from the report
Mixed views about activities
minorThe home offered a range of activities and had a full-time activities coordinator. However, feedback from relatives was mixed, with some feeling there was not enough to occupy people.
“Most people were positive about the variety and frequency of activities, although we received mixed feedback from relatives.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly after a fall, skin problem or change in behaviour?
- 02What clear instructions are currently in place for staff when a person's behaviour may challenge others?
- 03How many staff vacancies remain, and how will staffing levels be maintained while recruitment continues?
- 04What activities are available each week, and how do you adapt them to each person's interests and abilities?
- 05How can relatives take part in care plan reviews and raise concerns if records do not reflect their relative's needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including checks of care, medicines, staffing, the premises, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 2018 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.
Every inspection of Bridge Haven
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 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.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.