CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bridgman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, recruitment, staffing and safeguarding were well managed. Infection control arrangements were also considered effective, although some bins were not pedal-operated and were replaced promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff received training and support, and people had access to health professionals and a positive behaviour support team.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity and respect. People were involved in monthly meetings about their care and future goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs, interests and communication. Inspectors found gaps in recording one person's mental health relapse and found that activities had been limited during the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, action plans and staff handovers. People, relatives, staff and health professionals were asked for their views, and the provider used feedback to plan improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was the first full inspection since the home registered in June 2020. Inspectors visited on 15 July and 11 August 2021. They looked at records, medicines, staffing, training, quality checks and infection control. They spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received care planned around their needs and were involved in decisions. Staff supported people to be independent and worked with health and social care professionals.
There were some minor gaps. One person was not weighed regularly as expected, and their refusal was not recorded. Records did not fully describe one person's mental health relapse and its link to an incident leading to hospital reassessment. The home acted promptly when inspectors found that not all bins were pedal-operated.
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care, and support plans reflected their needs, preferences and goals.
“People received care that was tailored to their needs. They were involved in the support they wanted.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were checked and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities.
“People received a safe service because risks to their health and safety were being well managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported their independence, including helping one person move to more independent accommodation.
“Staff knew people and their needs well. We observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Health support
People had access to a range of health professionals. The positive behaviour support team visited weekly to support people and staff.
“There was a positive behaviour support team that worked alongside the staff. They visited weekly to provide ongoing support to people and staff.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, surveys, action plans and regular checks to monitor safety and improve the service.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and make improvements.” from the report
Weight records
needs fixingOne person was not weighed as regularly as the provider expected. Although the person often refused, this refusal had not been recorded.
“However, we found that one person was not being regularly weighed in line with the provider's expectations.” from the report
Mental health records
needs fixingDaily records did not fully describe one person's mental health relapse or link it to incidents that led to hospital reassessment. The management team said this would be reviewed.
“One person's mental health had relapsed but daily records did not capture this information, with staff only giving a brief overview of what the person had done that day.” from the report
Infection control bins
minorNot all bins were pedal-operated, which could increase infection-spread risk. The deputy acted promptly by ordering replacements.
“Not all bins were pedal action which helps to minimise risks of spreading infection.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure refusals of weighing or other health checks are recorded?
- 02How do you record and share changes in a person's mental health, incidents and hospital assessments?
- 03What activities and community opportunities are currently available now that pandemic restrictions have eased?
- 04How often are medicines, care records and risk assessments checked for accuracy?
- 05How will you keep families updated about care changes and improvement plans?
This was the first full inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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, March 2021
Bridgman House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention measures during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control in the care home, which supported up to 12 people and had seven residents at the time.
Inspectors found measures to reduce infection risks. These included screening visitors, hand sanitiser, temperature checks, cleaning schedules, social distancing reminders, suitable protective equipment and staff training.
The home was also supporting people's wellbeing and contact with relatives. Its layout allowed people to isolate if they developed symptoms, and staff described how new admissions would be isolated safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for the full range of care questions.
Visitor infection controls
The home had entrance checks and hygiene measures intended to reduce the spread of infection.
“There were clear measures in place at the entrance to the home to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff wearing masks and noted that staff had training in using protective equipment safely.
“Staff had been given training in the safest ways to put on and take off PPE to minimise the risk of spreading infection.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends online, and to enjoy activities and choices within the restrictions at the time.
“People could also keep in contact with friends or relatives via online video links.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
The building's layout allowed people to isolate, and staff described plans for safely isolating new admissions.
“The layout and design of the building meant people could isolate if they became symptomatic” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention measures are in place now, and how have they changed since January 2021?
- 02How are staff and residents currently tested for infections?
- 03What happens if a new resident needs support that makes the recommended isolation period difficult?
- 04How do people keep in contact with relatives when visits are restricted?
- 05Can you show us the current cleaning schedules and explain how outbreaks would be managed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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 Bridgman House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 June 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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 £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.