Archived: Bright Brains Global Limited

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people not receiving person centred care and people not being given opportunities to feed back on the care they received.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a mixed response from relatives around whether they felt their family members had access to meaningful activities. Some felt their loved ones were supported to go out regularly others felt their loved one’s external activities were limited.

Some people were able to go out and enjoy activities that were important to them. However, other people were limited to visits with their family and short walks. One person had a schedule of activities for the week; however, their care notes did not reflect these were taking place or offered.

Care plans had limited information on people’s life histories and leaders and staff we spoke with lacked knowledge of this. Knowing the life history of people with learning disabilities is crucial for staff because it informs their care and support, promotes person-centeredness, and helps understand their behaviours and communication needs. This knowledge enhances relationships, strengthens identity, and allows for more meaningful interactions.

People did not always experience continuity in relation to meeting their needs. The provider's processes to ensure people's ability to be integrated into their local community needed improvement. We received feedback people's activities were not always promptly organised, for example people’s ability to go out was affected by the lack staff available in the evenings unless family were organising this. We were not assured these concerns had been identified by the provider's own systems to ensure their effectiveness.

The leaders had produced various alternative communication aids for people including social stories and pictorial aids in differing formats. However, we observed staff were not always using these aids to assist people. For example, a member of staff told us a person heavily relied on their communication aids to make decisions, and they ensured they were taken out with them when the person went out with staff. They also told us they would keep some of these aids on a key ring to have them to hand when the person was at home. However, during our first visit, these aids were left in the home when the person went out. On the second visit, these aids were left in the upstairs office and were not used whilst the person was in their home.

People were not always encouraged to feedback any areas for improvements. We were told people had monthly key worker meetings, however there was no record of this for all people. There were no surveys provided to people in an accessible format to gain any feedback from them.

We saw that relatives and stakeholders had completed surveys, and their responses were positive. Relatives gave mixed responses regarding the communication from leaders. Some told us the leaders were quick to respond. However, other told us they were not always communicated with. One relative said, “Sometimes waiting for an answer can be a bit of an issue.”

A member of senior management team involved in people’s care had recently left the service however this had not been communicated to relatives.

People were not always supported to access the community. For example, people were unable to go out in the evening as there was not a member of staff available to support them with this unless the relatives were involved.

We found people did not consistently receive the support around RSRCRC, as we found not all people had good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Processes were not always effective in ensuring each person had the same equity in access.

Although some people were supported to access external professional support, this was not consistent and as such meant that not everyone was being given equal opportunities. There was a lack of evidence that each person's self-defined strengths, preferences, aspirations and needs as the basis on which to provide care and support to live an independent life was undertaken. For example, we found no evidence that any reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people had access to oral care for people that had anxieties when visiting the dentist. One person had not seen a psychologist for several months despite the relative frequently requesting this. The relative said, “I ask if they have spoken to the psychologist, they (staff) answer they haven’t spoken to then month after month. I have kind of given up” There was no evidence this had been followed up by the provider.

People did not always have the opportunity to experience things that meant something to them. One relative told us their loved one would like to spend more time with them. Staff also told us they were aware of this. However, despite this, there was no record of this person being supported to do so. Staff did not always make an effort to enable people to participate in their preferred activities.

People were not always supported to express their wishes for advanced care planning and care they wanted at the end stages of their lives. One person was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment. Staff did not ensure their wishes, preferences and decisions in relation to this were recorded in their care plans. This put the person at risk of not receiving their care in a person-centred, respectful and dignifying way.