Bridgewood House is a modern purpose-built building covering three floors. There are six units, two on each floor, named after local parks and the home refers to each unit as a ‘park’, five of which were in use. Bridgewood House is run by Independence and Wellbeing Enfield Limited and the home is registered to provide care to 70 people. At the time of the inspection there were 39 people using the service.

This was the first inspection of this service since they registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in March 2017. This inspection took place on 24, 25 and 26 April and 8 May 2018.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received their medicines on time. However, arrangements for covert and ‘as needed medicines’ were not consistently in place. Staff that administered medicines had not received medicines competency assessments since the home opened. Equipment used for medicines administration was not always cleaned after use.

Risk assessments were inconsistent and did not always identify people’s personal risks and there was a lack of guidance for staff on how to mitigate known risks. However, there were also examples of good risk assessments.

Staff did not have easy access to people’s Personal Evacuation Plans (PEEP) as these had not been printed.

Staff were not receiving regular supervision to support them in their role and assess their working practice. However, staff told us that they felt supported. Training was not always provided in a timely manner.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs. However, care plans were not person centred and failed to contain enough information about people to reflect their needs.

People were given prompt and empathetic care at the end of their lives. Arrangements were in place to ensure people were as comfortable as possible.

The home understood that activities and stimulation were important for people. A wide range of activities was in place and the home had two activities coordinators. However, the management team understood that this was an area that required further development.

People told us that they felt safe within the service and were well supported by staff. We saw positive and friendly interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place and staff understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm. Staff had received safeguarding training.

The home was aware of infection control procedures when working with people. Staff were supplied with gloves and aprons to ensure that people were safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were well supported when moving between services. Appropriate assessments and support for both people and relatives were in place.

People were encouraged to have a healthy diet. People were given choice around what food they wanted to eat and staff knew what each person enjoyed. Snacks and drinks were readily available. People and relatives were complimentary about the food.

People and relatives were involved in planning their care. Relatives were positive about the input they were able to have.

People were able to personalise their rooms and the home was working towards making the environment more homely as care staff had recognised this area requiring further improvement.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns. Where complaints had been received, these had b