Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Bridge View

Goodpublished 4 May 2023, 3 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe and safety checks, including fire safety, were completed. Inspectors found some issues with medicines paperwork, agency staff checks, call-bell response at times and handwashing practice.
Effective?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management systems were in place but were not always followed. Some records were completed late or inaccurately, communication needed to improve, and new ways of working were not yet fully embedded.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2023

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and some records required improvement.

Inspectors visited without notice on 6 and 11 April 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe. People said they felt safe and staff were kind. Staffing levels met people's needs, medicines were generally managed safely, and fire and other safety checks were completed.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, the same as at the previous inspection. Some management checks and records were not completed properly or were not yet fully established. The report says the overall rating was Good, although one section also says the overall rating remained Requires Improvement.

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other three key questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had safeguarding systems, risk assessments and safety monitoring in place.

    “People said they felt safe.” from the report
  • Kind and compassionate staff

    People and relatives described the care and staff positively. Inspectors found that people received kind and respectful care.

    “People and their relatives told us staff were kind and the care they received was good.” from the report
  • Safety systems

    The home recorded and reviewed accidents and incidents. Fire safety, equipment servicing and emergency evacuation plans were monitored.

    “Fire safety was monitored. This included completion of a yearly fire risk assessment and up to date personal emergency evacuation plans for people” from the report
  • Legal and best-interest decisions

    Inspectors found the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Decisions were made with relatives or healthcare professionals where needed.

    “We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Management checks and records

    needs fixing

    Governance systems were not always followed. Food and fluid records were sometimes completed after the event, so they might not have been accurate.

    “Records, including those in connection with food and fluids, were completed sometime after the event occurred which meant they may not have been fully accurate.” from the report
  • Agency staff checks

    needs fixing

    One agency nurse had out-of-date training and a DBS check. Some agency staff had not completed induction training, so the home was asked to review its recruitment checks.

    “We found records showed one nurse had out of date training and DBS check.” from the report
  • Call-bell response

    needs fixing

    Call bells sometimes rang for a long time when staff on upper floors were taking equipment or clothes elsewhere. The manager was asked to address this immediately.

    “Call bells were, on occasions, ringing for an extended period.” from the report
  • Medicines paperwork

    needs fixing

    People received their prescribed medicines, but records did not always show this clearly. Some as-required medicine protocols were missing, although the home was already working on improvements.

    “People received their prescribed medicines, but paperwork had not always reflected this.” from the report
  • Tailored activities

    minor

    Activities took place, but inspectors said the upper floors needed activities better suited to people living with dementia and people cared for in bed.

    “The upper units at the home required some tailored activities to take place in order to cater for the people living with dementia and those nursed in bed.” from the report
  • Infection control practice

    needs fixing

    Inspectors were only somewhat assured that staff used protective equipment and followed infection-control practice. Handwashing was not always done effectively.

    “Staff did not always follow IPC good practice, including washing hands effectively.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have you made to ensure food, fluid and medicines records are completed accurately and at the time of care?
  2. 02How do you now check agency nurses' DBS checks, training and induction before they work at the home?
  3. 03What has been done to make sure call bells on the upper floors are answered promptly?
  4. 04What tailored activities are now available for people living with dementia and people cared for in bed?
  5. 05How are you checking that staff follow handwashing and other infection-control procedures?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2023 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, February 2021

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe and effective care, but the home needed to improve its leadership and record keeping.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 December 2020 and 7 January 2021. Three inspectors and an Expert by Experience reviewed records, medicines, staffing, the building and infection control. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff.

The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. Inspectors found enough staff, safe premises, suitable infection control and medicines being given as prescribed. People said they felt safe and happy, and staff said they felt supported.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits and other checks were not always completed or effective. Records about medicines, fluids, incidents and agency staff were not always complete or fully reviewed.

The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection in 2018. This was a focused inspection, so Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall judgement.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe and staff were available to help them. The home had safeguarding procedures and staff understood how to report abuse.

    “People told us they felt safe and happy living at Bridge View.” from the report
  • Infection control

    The home had updated COVID-19 infection control arrangements. Staff had access to protective equipment and the home was cleaned regularly.

    “There were systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection and specific guidance for use in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
  • Choice and involvement

    People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Staff supported people to make choices about their care, food, drink and activities.

    “Records showed people and their relatives were actively involved in care planning and reviews.” from the report
  • Healthcare support

    Staff worked with GPs, district nurses and other health professionals. Care records included advice from professionals such as GPs and dieticians.

    “People were supported to access other healthcare services.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Quality checks were not reliable

    needs fixing

    Audits were not always completed or followed through. An issue found in a medicines audit remained outstanding at the next audit.

    “The quality and assurance systems in place did not fully monitor the safety and quality of the care provided to people.” from the report
  • Some medicines records were incomplete

    needs fixing

    Medicines were given safely, but records did not always show whether as-needed medicines had worked or were fully up to date.

    “Where people required 'as and when required' medicines for example, pain relief, information did not always record if these medicines had been effective.” from the report
  • Learning from incidents

    needs fixing

    Incidents were investigated, but lessons were not always recorded or shared with staff. This could make it harder to prevent similar problems happening again.

    “Lessons learned from investigations and incidents were not always documented or shared with staff to improve the quality of care provided.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What action has been completed to make medicines records accurate and to record whether as-needed medicines were effective?
  2. 02How do you now monitor people's fluid intake and identify when low intake must be escalated?
  3. 03How do you check that agency staff have completed recruitment checks, induction, training and competency checks before providing care?
  4. 04How are incidents and lessons learned now recorded and shared with all relevant staff?
  5. 05Can you show us the completed action plan and the latest audits for care quality and medicines?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2021 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 View

9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Bridge View →

  2. February 2021Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Bridge View →

  3. October 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2018Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. June 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. June 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. April 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. November 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2011.

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

23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland

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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near NorthumberlandProfiles, 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.