CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bridgemarsh Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured that formal systems were being followed because the temporary manager had not been in post long enough to focus on them.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Bridgemarsh Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally safe infection control during a coronavirus outbreak, but formal systems were still developing.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 25 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found good practical measures. Staff used infection control procedures safely. The home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing and outbreak risks.
A temporary manager had carried out a deep clean and removed clutter. However, the manager had not been in post long enough to focus on formal systems. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full overall quality rating.
Safe infection control
Inspectors observed staff following safe infection control practices during the outbreak.
“We observed staff undertaking safe infection control practice.” from the report
Wide range of controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, protective equipment, testing, admissions, social distancing and outbreak risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Cleaning and decluttering
The temporary manager had completed a deep clean and removed clutter to help reduce infection risks.
“There was a temporary manager in place who had carried out a deep clean and de-clutter which helped to minimise the spread of infection.” from the report
Support for staff
The manager recognised the difficult effect of the pandemic on staff and helped them access extra support.
“The manager demonstrated compassion for the difficult time staff had during the pandemic and helped them access additional support.” from the report
Formal systems still developing
minorThe temporary manager had dealt with immediate risks but had not been in the home long enough to focus on its formal infection control systems. This means it was not yet clear how consistently those systems were established and maintained.
“They had dealt with immediate risk since their arrival and had not been at the service long enough to focus on formal systems.” from the report
- 01How have the formal infection prevention and control systems been developed since the temporary manager started?
- 02How do you make sure the deep cleaning and de-cluttering are maintained?
- 03What lessons from the coronavirus outbreak have been put into practice?
- 04How do you currently manage visitors, protective equipment and testing?
- 05How do you make sure people are supported by consistent staff when usual staff are unavailable?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not assess or rate the other four CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and improvements in management since the last inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 03 March 2020. They spoke with people, care staff, managers and visiting professionals. They also observed care, reviewed records and checked the home and equipment.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by staff who knew them well, and involved in choices about their care, food and activities.
At the previous inspection, the home was rated Requires Improvement because its quality checks, care records and policies were not strong enough. Inspectors found these improvements had been made, including better care plans, updated policies and a stronger quality assurance system.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff showing kindness and empathy. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, communication and personal choices.
“Staff showed kindness and empathy. Staff obviously knew people well and there was lots of banter and laughter throughout the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff practical information about people's needs, preferences, communication and personal histories. Support was adapted when people's needs changed.
“People received person centred support which met their needs and preferences. They were supported to have as much choice and control over their life as possible.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had improved its quality assurance system since the previous inspection. Audits and action plans were used to monitor improvements.
“A quality assurance system was in place to enable the registered manager to monitor and identify any shortfalls in the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take part in activities and maintain relationships with family and friends.
“People were supported to live as full a life as possible and were enabled to participate in activities which interested them.” from the report
One communication adjustment was still needed
minorOne person said they needed their care plan in capital letters to read it more easily. The deputy manager said this would be arranged.
“However, one person told us they would like their care plan in capital letters to enable them to read it easily.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's communication needs are recorded in the format they can understand?
- 02How will you support my relative to make everyday choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 03How do you manage and review medicines, particularly if my relative has complex health needs?
- 04How will you involve our family in reviewing care plans and changing support when needs change?
- 05What quality checks and action plans are currently being used to monitor the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; the previous report's main shortfall was in well-led governance. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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.
Every inspection of Bridgemarsh Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Bridgemarsh Residential Home →
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bridgemarsh Residential Home →
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.