CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bridgedale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, staffing, risk assessment, medicines and infection control arrangements. One unused piece of equipment was waiting for an up-to-date safety certificate.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and worked with health professionals. People's food, drink, health, communication and decision-making needs were assessed and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and reviewed monthly or when needs changed. People had access to activities, community visits and end-of-life care planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff said the home was well run. The manager was approachable and carried out regular checks on quality and safety.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with one unused piece of equipment awaiting a safety certificate.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They observed daily care, checked the building, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were happy with the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, supporting independence and responding to their needs.
The home had enough staff, managed medicines safely, supported people's health and dietary needs, and offered activities in the home and community. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. One piece of equipment did not have an up-to-date safety certificate, but it was not being used and the manager agreed it would not be used until certified.
The previous rating was also Good, published on 7 April 2016. The provider had changed its legal entity since then, and the previous rating was used to help plan this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind. Inspectors observed care that respected people's dignity, privacy and individual choices.
“Without exception, people and their relatives said staff treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide personalised care without rushing. Staff responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were enough staff available to ensure people received personalised care and support.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered activities based on people's interests, including activities in the community. People could also use the gardens.
“Activities were planned by considering the interests and preferences of people using the service.” from the report
Visible management
The manager was present in the home and accessible to people, relatives and staff. Regular checks were used to identify improvements.
“The registered manager maintained oversight of the quality and safety of the service by completing a range of checks on an ongoing basis.” from the report
Equipment certificate
minorOne piece of equipment did not have an up-to-date safety certificate. It was not in use at the inspection, and the manager agreed it would remain unused until certified as safe.
“We identified one piece of equipment did not have an up to date safety certificate, though it was not in use at the time of this inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the equipment mentioned in the report now received its safety certificate, and how do you check that all equipment certificates stay current?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and what happens if their needs or preferences change?
- 03Which activities would suit my relative's interests, and how would you support them to join in or access the community?
- 04How do you involve relatives in care reviews and decisions about care?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family raised a concern or complaint?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the home’s premises and care, with ratings given for all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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.
Every inspection of Bridgedale House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 June 2018.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.