CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bridgwater Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, admissions, visitors, outbreak planning, hygiene and social distancing. They advised the home to seek advice about supporting one person who could not tolerate staff wearing masks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, with advice about supporting one person who could not tolerate staff wearing masks.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full quality of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, testing, PPE, outbreaks, social distancing and hygiene. Staff had infection control training and their practice was checked.
There had been no coronavirus outbreak at the time of the visit. All residents and staff had tested negative, although two residents had refused testing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating for the home or a rated judgement for the safe question.
Testing and vaccinations
There had been no coronavirus outbreak at the time of the inspection. All residents and staff had tested negative, and seven of nine residents had received their first vaccination.
“At the time of the inspection all residents and staff had tested negative.” from the report
PPE training
Staff had been trained to use PPE safely, and the manager carried out observations to check practice.
“Staff had received training in infection control, including how to safely put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Visitor controls
Visitors had been stopped during the rise in infections. The home had procedures for checking temperatures, hand hygiene, PPE and social distancing.
“The provider had a policy and procedure in place to check visitors' temperatures, ensure they sanitised their hands, wore PPE and maintained social distancing.” from the report
Admission arrangements
A recently admitted person was tested and supported to isolate in their flat.
“They were tested on admission and supported to isolate in their flat” from the report
Support for mask intolerance
needs fixingInspectors advised the home to consult Public Health England about how to support one person who could not tolerate staff wearing masks.
“However we advised the service to consult Public Health England (PHE) on the best way to support a person using the service who was unable to tolerate staff wearing masks” from the report
- 01How do you now support the person who cannot tolerate staff wearing masks?
- 02How do you manage coronavirus testing when a resident refuses a test?
- 03What are your current arrangements for visitors, including PPE, hand hygiene and social distancing?
- 04How would you isolate a resident in their flat if there was an infection outbreak?
- 05How often are staff and residents tested now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the other four questions or provide a quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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, December 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care and outstanding personalised support, with no registered manager in post at the visit.
This was a comprehensive inspection. It was unannounced and included a second announced visit. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and the manager. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Responsive care was rated Outstanding. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well and they were listened to.
Inspectors found that the home had improved since the previous inspection. Staffing was more consistent, quality checks were being used to find and fix problems, and people were supported to make progress towards their own goals.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe with other residents and staff. The home had improved staffing consistency since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection everybody spoken with told us they felt safe living at Bridgwater Court both with other people living there and the staff team.” from the report
Personalised independence
Staff helped people understand and manage risks rather than simply stopping them from doing things. This helped some people use the community independently.
“We found the risk assessments in place were specifically tailored to individuals, which meant staff enabled people to recognise the risk and understand the actions they needed to take to ensure they remained safe.” from the report
Creative support
Inspectors found examples of patient, individual support with personal hygiene, health care, education and community activities.
“These examples show how staff responded to people as individuals looking at creative and innovative ways to support people in leading a fulfilled life in which they could choose and achieve their goals.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The home had strengthened its systems for finding shortfalls and making improvements. Audits, file reviews, supervision and action plans were being used.
“The systems in place to monitor and drive improvement were well embedded in the running of the service.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. An application had been submitted and was being processed.
“There was not a registered manager in post, however an application for the manager to be registered with the Care Quality Commission had been submitted and was being processed.” from the report
Earlier medicines paperwork shortfall
minorThe home's own audit had found that some instructions for medicines given when needed were incomplete. The report says this was followed up and the paperwork was put in place.
“one medicines audit had identified that some people's PRN (as required medicines) protocols had not been fully competed.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application for CQC registration now been completed?
- 02How many agency staff are currently used, and how do you make sure people receive consistent support?
- 03How are as-required medicines and their protocols checked now?
- 04How will my relative be involved in setting goals and reviewing their support?
- 05How do staff support people to access the community safely while respecting their choices?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with an unannounced visit and a second announced visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2017 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 Bridgwater Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 April 2013.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.