CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bridgewood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were documented and managed, medicines were generally administered safely, staffing and recruitment arrangements were appropriate, and infection control arrangements were in place. Inspectors identified medicines temperature recording issues and said staff had not yet had individual COVID-19 risk assessments at the time of the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received detailed assessments, trained staff support, suitable food and access to healthcare. Staff supported people's choices and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity, offered choices and supported to remain independent where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and kept up to date. The home provided activities, responded to complaints and recorded people's communication and end of life wishes, although activity timetables used small writing.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team had improved record keeping, audits and oversight. Most feedback was positive, but relatives gave mixed views about communication during the pandemic.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Bridgewood House is rated Good; inspectors found caring staff and major improvements, with some minor issues addressed during or after the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 4 February and 16 March 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and recruitment files, and checked audits and infection control.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found warm relationships, better care records, safer medicines systems, appropriate staffing and good support with food, healthcare, activities and end of life care.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier problems with risks, medicines, complaints and governance had been addressed, and the previous breaches were no longer present.
Some issues were identified, including medicines storage temperatures, staff COVID-19 risk assessments, small writing on activity timetables and mixed communication with relatives. The home took action on several of these.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff chatting and laughing with people in a warm and homely setting.
“Throughout the inspection we observed warm and friendly interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, faith and support needs. People were involved in choices about food, activities and personal care.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed people's like and dislikes and how they wanted to receive support.” from the report
Improved management
The new management team had introduced regular audits and improved care records. Inspectors found a stronger culture of learning and improvement.
“The change in management had a positive impact on the home, people's quality of care and managerial oversight.” from the report
Medicines storage and instructions
needs fixingStaff did not act when medicines storage temperatures were outside the correct range. Instructions were also not initially clear for medicines disguised in food or given through feeding tubes, although action was taken after the inspection.
“Staff did not act when the temperature of medicines storage areas was outside of the correct range to ensure medicines were suitable for use.” from the report
COVID-19 staff risk assessments
needs fixingStaff had not been assessed for individual COVID-19 risk factors during the inspection. The manager later provided a template and said it would be used for all staff.
“At the time of the inspection we found staff had not been assessed for their individual risk factors around COVID-19.” from the report
Activity timetable readability
minorThe activity timetables used small writing. This could have made them difficult for some people to read, and the manager said this would be reviewed.
“Whilst these were pictorial, they were in A4 format with small font writing.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingMost relatives were positive, but some said they did not receive enough general information during the pandemic. Inspectors saw that two letters had been sent during that period.
“We have not had newsletters or email communication as to what is going on, but there is good communication in relation to mum's health.” from the report
- 01How are medicines storage temperatures now checked and recorded, and what happens if they are outside the correct range?
- 02How do you make sure instructions are clear when medicines are disguised in food or given through feeding tubes?
- 03What changes have been made to individual COVID-19 risk assessments for staff?
- 04How will activity timetables be made easier for people with sight or reading difficulties to use?
- 05How often will relatives receive general updates about the home, as well as information about their relative's health?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating, covering all five key questions and including a specific check of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
Every inspection of Bridgewood House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.