Brighter Future Services

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered managers and staff told us they aimed to support people to lead independent and fulfilling lives in their homes for as long as possible. There were a clear culture and vision that enabled this. This was reflected in the service user guide that was issued to people.

Relatives were happy with the care their family member received and felt the service was well run. The registered manager held regular meetings and supervisions with staff to discuss what was happening. This gave the opportunity to share learning and discuss ways they could improve the service. There was a policy on equality, diversity and inclusion. All staff received training in this topic.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. The registered manager had the experience, capability and integrity to ensure that the organisational vision can be delivered, and risks are well managed.

The registered manager told us they had an open-door policy towards staff contacting them. Staff we spoke with were positive about the organisation and the support they received from senior staff.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People who used the service told us they felt they could raise issues with the provider and that they would be addressed. There were systems in place to support the practice of being able to speak up, including a complaints procedure and whistle blowing policy. The registered manager held regular discussions with staff and people, giving them opportunities to speak up. There was an annual survey for people’s relatives and healthcare professionals which gave them the opportunity to provide feedback on the running of the service.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider sought to value their workforce and to promote diversity and inclusion. They had policies in place around equality and diversity. The registered manager gave us example of member of staff who experienced health problems and adjustments were made for them to carry out with their daily routine tasks. The registered manager also told us that to ensure that continuity in care and staffing, new staff members were arranged shadowing few days prior to lead an independent shift to ensure people using the service were comfortable with them.

The provider had a recruitment policy which had guidance on how to ensure equality and diversity was part of the recruitment process to encourage diversity in their workforce.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

There was a registered manager who had responsibility for the day to day running of the service. The registered manager confirmed they completed a number of audits as part of their quality assurance processes. There were business continuity and emergency plans developed which identified actions to be taken in case of an issue which could affect the provision of care. Staff told us they received regular spot checks to ensure they were providing the correct care and support.

Whilst quality audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of care and steps were taken to improve, we found there was a lack of robust oversight in relation to audits of people’s support and risk management plans as these audits did not identify the shortfalls / concerns that we found during the inspection around promoting choices, discrepancies between care plan and risk assessments, the management of sharp objects, and the issues with internal and external quality assurance audits.

We found that quality assurance checks were not effective. For example, an internal quality assurance audits did not confirm who completed them and how they will monitor and take action if there were any problems identified. In addition, another quality assurance audit was completed by the external auditor, but the report did not have external auditor’s organisation details available on the report.

We highlighted this issue with the registered the manager, and they updated their audits forms.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager confirmed that they were working with various local authorities. They also worked closely with various healthcare professionals including GPs, pharmacy, dentists, and social workers.

A regular satisfaction survey was sent to staff, people and relatives to obtain their feedback about the service. Should it be required, there were systems in place to learn from and improve practices based on feedback received.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had various quality assurance and monitoring systems. The registered manager told us they had carried out an audit of the service. The provider also had an external auditor who completed an annual audit check on the service.