Bright Brains Global Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people not always being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People were not always supported to be as independent as they were able to.

This service scored 30 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives we spoke with fed back positively about the caring nature of some of the staff. However, some also told us they did not always feel welcomed when they were visiting their loved one. We found people were not always treated in a respectful way. The provider had converted bedrooms in the supported living homes into an office and there were health and safety notices on the walls around the home for staff. This showed a lack of respect that these were people’s homes.

One person had a camera in their room in the event they have a seizure. This camera was supposed to be turned off during the day and when the person wanted privacy. However, staff told us this camera was never turned off and when the person wanted privacy, they would just cover themselves with bedding. This was undignified and disrespectful for the person.

A member of staff told us that we could not rely on the word of a person supported who told us that member of staff was on duty the previous night as the person’s capacity would have been limited in that moment. The member of staff had been dishonest with us about being on duty the previous night, so the information given to us by the person was accurate.

Whilst we saw people’s religious preferences were respected by staff, we found staff and the provider lacked an understanding of how people should always be treated as individuals. Leaders and staff referred to people’s homes as ‘projects’ which was undignified. It was also referenced in care documents, staff employment contracts and audits. Referring to a care setting as a ‘project’ can be undignified because it reduces people to a task or a goal, rather than recognising their individual worth and the value of their lives. It implies an institutionalised approach, focusing on the supported living setting’s purpose as a provider of service rather than on the well-being and individual needs of people.

We found people and their representatives were not consulted or involved where decisions were made about other people moving into the rented accommodation. This was not in line with the RSRCRS guidance. One person lived with 2 other people who moved in after them. We found this was not a compatible situation for all 3 people. Compatibility among people in shared living situations for people with learning disabilities is crucial for fostering a positive and supportive environment, promoting independence, and ensuring well-being. It helps to reduce conflict, improve overall mood and social skills, and encourage more opportunities for learning and growth.

Staff did not always consider people’s choices around the care they received. One relative told us they had been restricted by the staff to how often they could visit their family in person’s own home. This was having detrimental impact on the person and their family. This was a total disregard for people to make their own choices of when they wanted visitors.

People and the families were not told they were able to make choices about which care company provided care and support. They assumed that as the provider assisted people to find their rented accommodation, they would have to use their company for care and support. One relative told us, “I didn’t know [person] could have different care.”

People’s care plans listed areas they could be supported with to develop their independence. However, we saw very little evidence staff were supporting people in this way. There was very little information on how people working towards these goals. Supporting independence for people with learning disabilities is crucial for fostering their autonomy, self-determination, and overall well-being. It allows them to exercise their choices, participate in their communities, and live fulfilling lives, similar to everyone else. This support helps them develop essential life skills, build confidence, and take control of their own lives.

Staff were not always responding to people’s need for emotional support or comfort. A senior member of staff and a relative told us that a person had a bereavement of a very close relative. There was no reference to this family member in the care plan or guidance for staff how the person needed to be emotionally supported with this.

However, we observed another person needed lots of time to eat their meal (as recommended by a health care professional). We saw this taking place on the first day of the visits to people’s homes.

Leaders did not consider staff wellbeing and did not support staff adequately to enable them to focus on providing good quality care and support to people. There were staff that were working on their own in a person’s home. Leaders expected staff to work 12-hour shifts with no arrangements put in place to ensure they were able to take a break.