Bright Brains Global Limited

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the lack of reporting notifiable incidents and there a lack of robust governance and a poor culture at the service.

This service scored 25 (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 did not have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. We identified a closed culture at Bright Brains Global Limited. (A closed culture is a poor culture in a health or care service that increases the risk of harm.)

Quality frameworks did not always recognise best practice and were not effective in identifying short falls in the care people received or gaps in people’s care records. The provider told us, “Sometimes, it is about mindset, like how to show empathy, not sympathy.” However, we found leaders of the service did not demonstrate the required experience or capability to deliver person centred care or to ensure risks were well managed. They failed to recognise they had developed a culture that did not promote or uphold people’s rights. We found the leaders were not always open and transparent with others involved in people’s care or during our assessment. This meant professionals and people’s representatives were not always in receipt of information to make an accurate judgement about the quality and safety of the care provided, which put people at risk. The provider told us, they were not open with us on the first day of the inspection and wanted to be open with us now. However, the expectation is for providers to always be open and transparent.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty. Although he majority of staff fed back positively about the leadership, we found the leaders had not considered the impact to staff in working long and at times multiple shifts. The provider worked in a way which developed a ‘blame culture’ where staff were blamed for mistakes or errors, rather than leaders taking responsibility. For example, we asked the provider why staff referred to people’s homes as ‘projects.’ They told us they did not like staff using this phrase and did not know why they did. However, this term was being used in all of the providers documentation including staff contracts and audits. The provider also removed all care documentation from 1 person’s home to prevent us from reviewing it.

Leaders did not role model a shared vision, strategy or positive culture to staff. This had a major detrimental impact across all areas of people's lives. The provider told us in relation to encouraging staff to speak up that they wanted to develop a culture where staff could freely speak. We found this was not happening in practice. Where staff had been required to work both day and night shifts, they were not open and transparent with us about this or about other areas of concerns. We found the leaders had not encouraged a positive culture where people or staff could feel they can speak up, that their voices will be heard, and their concerns and suggestions listened to. The leaders failed to recognise they had developed a closed culture that did not promote or uphold people’s or staffs’ rights.

The service failed to work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff had not received appropriate training in this area and failed to demonstrate good values in relation to equality and diversity. Although staff we spoke with told us they felt they were treated fairly, we found staffs human rights were not respected.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider was unable to provide evidence of an effective system to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided. The provider told us they undertook in person audits of each home to ensure staff were there and to check the care notes. However, despite us asking for the records around this, they were not provided. The provider could not be assured that all areas of service delivery were monitored and that actions were taken to improve poor practice. They failed to identify the concerns we shared with them during the assessment, such as the lack of robust risk assessments, unsafe staff levels and working hours, lack of decision specific capacity assessments, lack of activities for some people and the poor culture of the service. This put people at risk of receiving poor care and support which did not fully support their safety, wellbeing and independence.

The provider told us people’s records were archived after 1 month. We found that all these documents were not being stored at the registered office but instead at 1 person’s home.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, to provide seamless experience for people. They did not share information and learning with partners and did not collaborate for improvement. External professionals told us they were not always made aware of incidents at the service.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. The provider told us they archived all accidents and incidents after 1 month. Despite us requesting evidence of incidents for the past 6 months for all people, we were not provided with all of these as some had been archived. There was no analysis of the incidents to look for trends, themes and triggers to try and reduce the risk of recurring incidents which placed people at risk. By systematically reviewing incidents services can implement changes that lead to continuous improvement. This might involve revising protocols, enhancing staff training that reduce the likelihood of future incidents. We found this was not taking place.