Little Bridge House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We only reviewed the care provision, integration and continuity quality statement for the responsive key question. We rated this as good. Overall, the service remained as rated as good for this key question based on scores from the previous inspection. The service ensured that there were key contacts for each child and staff worked hard to ensure that the child was supported to have choice regarding their care and the activities they chose to participate in.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Families appreciated having named key contacts for their child for their visits. Some feedback from a remembrance day stated ‘the children had built up such a good relationship with ****, over the years, the fact that they and other familiar team members were there made the day much easier’.

The service did not operate 7 days a week due to a lack of staffing and the requirement to ensure that staffing levels were sufficient to be able to support children and young people at the location. As the service mainly offered a planned short hospice stay service, this meant the main impact on patients was the service could not support as many children and families as it could have done had it been open 7 days a week. We received information post inspection that the service had increased its offering to 6 days a week. Staff worked hard to remove any barriers to access for patients. The acuity of patients was carefully monitored to ensure that they could access the service in a safe way. Named staff acted as the main point of contact for the children and their families and this ensured there was continuity of care and support.

The service had a clear process regarding eligibility criteria of children for the service within their policies and procedures. This had been reviewed and the policy was in the process of being updated to reflect the service lowering their maximum age of children and young people accepted into the service from 21 to 18. The service had ensured that the children already using the service that this affected were allowed a period of adjustment of a year.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.