Archived: Brighter Care

Updated 21 August 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 24 June 2015, with a follow-up visit to the agency’s office on 30 June 2015. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice. We did this because the manager was sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service and we needed to be sure that they would be in. One inspector undertook the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) before our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was because we had brought forward the inspection and they would not have had the opportunity to complete one.

During our inspection we went to the agency’s office and spoke to the provider, the registered manager and three members of care staff. We reviewed a variety of documents which included four people’s care plans, four staff files and other records relating to the management of the service. We made spoke to three people that used the service and six relatives.

We also spoke with three other health and social care professionals who were involved in the care provided to people who used the service.

Brighter Care was first registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 1 May 2014. This was the first time the agency had been inspected.

Updated 21 August 2015

We undertook an announced inspection of Brighter Care over two days on 24 and 30 June 2015. We told the provider one day before our visit that we were coming to make sure that someone would be available to support the inspection and give us access to the agency’s records. Brighter Care provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 19 people were receiving a personal care service from the agency.

The agency had a registered manager. 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 said that they felt safe and their relatives told us that they were confident that their family members were better protected with Brighter Care supporting them. The agency had good systems in place to ensure that people’s property was kept secure and that only those who needed access had the ability to do so.

People were safeguarded from abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about their individual roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and protecting their rights in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The registered manager conducted a detailed assessment of people’s needs before offering them a service. This included a full assessment of all the risks associated with people, their environment and any equipment or specialist conditions. Healthcare professionals told us that they were confident that the agency only offered a service to people that they knew they could appropriately support. Care staff had a good understanding of the need to highlight any new risks to the office so that a review could be undertaken. People and staff felt protected by the agency’s proactive and enabling approach to risk assessment.

The agency had good recruitment systems in place to match people with care staff and ensure that people received the support they needed and expected. People told us that they received the right level of care, at the right time and that the agency had never missed a call. People said that they felt confident that they could rely on the agency.

Where people required assistance with their medicines, this was done appropriately and in accordance with the care plan. Care staff were trained in the administration of medicines and were knowledgeable about the practices in place to support people safely.

People benefitted from the support of skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs. People described care staff as “Competent” and “Totally fantastic”. Relatives and professionals alike had nothing but praise for the way the registered manager and care staff supported people. The agency had links with other healthcare professionals and worked collaboratively with them to promote people’s good health and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration in accordance with their assessed needs. Where required, staff provided practical support or prompting and were aware of the need to report any concerns swiftly.

People and their relatives were impressed with the quality of care and motivation of staff. The registered manager and staff were continuously praised for the kindness and compassion they showed people who used the service. We were given many examples of how staff had “Gone the extra mile” to do the “little things that really make a difference.” Staff provided people with a truly personalised service that focused on them as individuals and not just a list of tasks. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted and upheld at all times.

People told us that they received a totally “Responsive service” which was flexible and adapted to their needs. People appreciated the ability to adjust their service according to their needs or activities. People described how they had been enabled to be as independent as possible, but knowing that back-up support was always there if they needed it.

The agency operated with an open and inclusive culture in which feedback was ongoing and regularly sought. Due to the small nature of the agency, the registered manager had a relationship with each person who received a service. People and their relatives were confident that if they had any concerns, they would be listened to and resolved quickly.