CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Bridge Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and care records gave staff clear guidance about managing health risks. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and learning from incidents were all found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and care was adjusted as their health needs changed. Staff had specialist training and worked with health professionals to support people's health, independence and outcomes.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, regular reviews and a management team committed to improvement. People, relatives and professionals described communication and partnership working positively.
What inspectors found, March 2021
The Bridge Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found safe, skilled and well-managed care, with some mixed views about staffing levels.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 and 17 February 2021. Inspectors reviewed the concerns received about people's nursing care needs. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received care from skilled staff, and benefited from effective management and teamwork.
There were mixed views about staffing levels. The home used agency staff during the pandemic and was still recruiting, but inspectors found no evidence that this concern had placed people at risk of harm.
This inspection did not look again at Caring or Responsive. Their ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were used when calculating the overall rating.
Personalised support
Care was tailored to people's individual needs, recovery and goals. Staff supported people to take positive risks and regain independence.
“People received care which was extremely personalised to their individual needs and focused on their recovery and outcomes.” from the report
Specialist staff skills
Staff had specialist knowledge and regular competency checks for complex care, including tracheostomy and PEG support.
“People were supported by a staff team who were highly skilled, knowledgeable and experienced in the support they required.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records showed when medicines were received, given, prompted or refused. The management team checked records and reviewed medicines when needed.
“Staff kept accurate records of when people's medicines were received, administered, prompted or refused.” from the report
Joined-up care
The home worked closely with specialist health professionals. This helped provide continuous support and better outcomes for people.
“The service worked closely with a wide range of health professionals who specialised in the care of people living with neurological disorders and or physical disabilities.” from the report
Good management checks
Audits, competency checks, spot checks and care record reviews were used to monitor quality and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many permanent care and nursing staff are currently in post, and how is recruitment progressing?
- 02When agency staff are used, what induction and care-specific training do they receive?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff know where equipment and other important items are kept?
- 04How will you keep us updated about any changes to our relative's medicines?
- 05How will our relative and family be involved in setting and reviewing care goals?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with a minor gap in accessible information.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 August 2019. Two inspectors spoke with three people living at the home, two relatives and nine staff. They also checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicine management, enough staff, suitable training and personalised care. People were treated with dignity and supported to stay independent.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found three breaches of regulations. This inspection found that improvements had been made and there were no longer any breaches. Information was usually provided in accessible formats, although not all options had been explored in some cases.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People said they were happy living at the home and that staff provided kind and caring support.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records had no unexplained gaps or errors. Staff had medicine training, and audits and checks were carried out.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicine administration records had been completed without unexplained gaps or errors.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's assessed needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed to reflect current choices.
“People received personalised support based on their assessed needs and preferences.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped people work towards personal goals and maintain or improve their independent living skills.
“Staff supported people to maintain and improve their independent living skills, which people said gave them confidence about moving to other services or back home.” from the report
Open leadership
People, relatives and staff said their views were listened to. The provider used audits and feedback to monitor and improve the service.
“People, relatives and staff said there was open and transparent communication from the service.” from the report
Accessible information
minorInformation was usually provided in accessible formats, but inspectors found that not all available options had been explored in some cases. The manager said this would be reviewed and inspectors saw this work had started.
“Information was usually provided to people in the most accessible format possible, though in some instances not all available options had been explored.” from the report
- 01How do you check which communication format each person needs, and have all available options now been explored?
- 02How do you make sure care plans continue to reflect each person's current choices and support needs?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient for the people living here?
- 04If you begin supporting people with extremely complex needs, what training, staffing and medical cover will be in place?
- 05What do your quality audits currently check, and how are families told when issues are found and fixed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care provided and the premises, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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 The Bridge Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 August 2017.
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 Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.