CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Bridgets Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but weaknesses in safety checks, activities and management oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 19 and 20 August 2022. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind and respectful. The home was clean, infection control was strong, people received enough food and drink, and staff supported access to healthcare. Staff were trained and supported, and the ratings for Effective and Caring were Good.
However, some safety checks and records were not reliable. Occasional medicines did not have clear instructions, risk assessments were difficult to follow, staffing levels were not formally calculated, and care plans were not always reviewed on time. There was also little planned social activity.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. The Well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement, and the Safe and Responsive ratings also fell from Good. The report found a breach relating to poor governance, although it said there was no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also observed caring interactions and saw that privacy was maintained.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed respectful and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food and drink, with choices available. The home worked with doctors, nurses and other professionals to support people's health needs.
“People had access to health care and specialist medical support when needed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found the home clean and free from clutter. They were assured that infection risks, personal protective equipment and visiting were managed safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, training and regular supervision. Training included areas such as medicines, fire safety, first aid and dementia care.
“Staff told us they received enough training. Some of the subjects included, first aid, medicines, fire safety and dementia care.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's quality checks did not identify problems with care plans, risk assessments and medicines guidance. This was a legal breach.
“Quality assurance systems were either not in place or were not operating effectively to continually monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Unclear risk and medicines records
seriousRisk assessments used different formats and could be hard to follow. Instructions for medicines taken only occasionally were not in place, creating a risk of inconsistent administration.
“However, where people were prescribed medicines they only needed to take occasionally, guidance was not in place for staff to follow to ensure those medicines were administered in a consistent way.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere was no planned activities programme, and records mainly showed television or radio. Inspectors recommended getting guidance to improve social stimulation.
“The home did not have a planned activities programme in place and people's life histories and interests were not always explored.” from the report
Care plans not reviewed on time
needs fixingThree people's plans had not received their monthly review since May 2022. This created a risk that care might not reflect people's current needs.
“Three people's plans had not received their monthly review since May 2022.” from the report
Incomplete formal assessments
needs fixingPeople did not always have a formal assessment before moving in. The manager said a new pre-assessment form had been introduced.
“People did not always have a formal assessment of their needs before moving into the home.” from the report
- 01What formal system is now used to check care plans, risk assessments and medicines guidance?
- 02How do you calculate the number of staff needed for the people currently living in the home?
- 03What instructions are now in place for medicines that people take only occasionally?
- 04What regular activities are now available, especially for people who spend time in their bedrooms?
- 05Have all care plans been reviewed on time, and how are people and relatives involved in those reviews?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led fell from Good, while Effective and Caring remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2022 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, May 2019
St Bridgets Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some safety issues fixed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 24 and 29 April 2019. One inspector met everyone living at the home and spoke with six people, five staff members and a health professional. The inspector also reviewed care records, staff checks and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and care was given with kindness, dignity and respect. Medicines were managed safely, care was personalised, and people were supported with meals, health needs, activities and outings.
On the first day, inspectors found some air mattresses set incorrectly for people's weights, an unsecured wardrobe and an uncovered radiator. These issues had all been addressed by the second day. The previous inspection, published in October 2016, also rated the service Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with warmth, patience, dignity and respect. They also encouraged independence and took account of personal beliefs and preferences.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff treated people with kindness and patience.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's health, social care needs, wishes and preferences. Staff understood how people wanted their care and support to be given.
“People received personalised care and support that had been individualised to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Records showed correct stock levels, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, managed, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Good health and food support
The home supported people to maintain a balanced diet and worked with health professionals when people had health or swallowing needs.
“People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found clear leadership, effective communication and regular audits. Staff felt able to suggest improvements and raise concerns.
“There was a process of continual improvement and quality assurance in place.” from the report
Safety checks needed action
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, some air mattresses were set incorrectly for people's weights. One wardrobe was not fixed to the wall and one radiator was uncovered. The report says all these issues were corrected by the second day.
“Some air mattresses were at the wrong setting for the individual's weight.” from the report
- 01How do you check that air mattresses and other equipment are set correctly for each person's needs?
- 02How do you check bedrooms and radiators for possible safety risks after the inspection?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or health changes?
- 04What activities and community outings are currently available to residents?
- 05How would you support someone needing end of life care, given that nobody needed palliative or end of life care during this inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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 St Bridgets Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.