Archived: 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 with their independence skills.

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.

The provider did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

At the previous assessment we found staff frequently referred to people’s homes as ‘projects.’ Whilst this was no longer happening we still found some institutionalised language being used such as ‘community walks’ when people were going out for a walk and referring to people being ‘taken out of the service’ when this was their home and not a service. When speaking to staff, they referred to people by their initials. They also did this when talking to each other. In care notes staff were frequently just referring to people as initials. Referring to people in this way strips away their individual identity, reducing a person with a life story to a functional, and impersonal label.

Since the last assessment, a camera was longer being used to monitor a person when they were in their bedroom. However, this had been replaced with an audio monitor in the event they had a seizure. Staff told us this was never turned off. Staff said that the seizures were very infrequent with the last one being in August 2025. This meant when the person wanted privacy this was not given as staff were always listening in on them. This was undignified and disrespectful for the person. Staff told us a seizure mat had been considered instead but never followed up on.

As found at the previous assessment people in one of the homes did not have access to toilet roll or hand towels and we noted that the toilet had urine in. A member of staff told us the surplus supply was kept in a cupboard in the garden room however they had not taken steps to ensure this was made available for people.

However, relatives fed back that staff were generally kind towards their loved ones. One told us, “They’re friendly towards (person)…. I can see affection; they are getting to understand (Person).” However, another relative said that staff were courteous but that, “Every carer is different, some will take an interest and put his Alexa on, some seem to take a more active role than others.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans listed individualised areas they could be supported with to develop their skills and to achieve goals. However, we saw very little evidence staff supporting people in this way. One relative told us, “Sometimes I think the staff should be working for (person) rather than the other way around.” There was very little information on how people were working towards these goals. Although people were all allocated a key worker, there was no evidence that people had meetings with their key worker to coordinate the person’s support, champion the person’s voice, and ensure person-centred care.

We noted in one person’s ‘PBSP’ it stated that staff should ‘calmly’ ask the person to apologise after incidents of distressed behaviour. There were occasions in ABCs records where staff had recorded that they asked person to say sorry. Asking a person to say ‘sorry’ can induce shame, guilt, and resentment, particularly if they are already overwhelmed. It can make them feel like a ‘bad person’ rather than a person experiencing distress.

We noted that the communal lounge in 1 person’s home lacked personalisation and a homely feel. Staff were using the dining table in the lounge to store their electronic devices and care records.

However, relatives felt that staff knew and understood their loves one’s individual needs. One told us, “I think they (staff) have got to know (person) quite well, there’s a good understanding and rapport between them.” There was evidence that people were being supported with the religious needs including attending services and culturally appropriate meals.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

As at the previous assessment, people and the families were not told they were able to make choices about which care company provided care and support. At this assessment, the provider sent us updated care contracts for people which were all signed by people’s representatives. However, these still did not contain information that they could make choices around which care company they wanted to deliver care.

As the previous assessment, people’s care plans listed areas they could be supported in to develop their independence. On relative told us, “I would like to see more of (encouragement) that rather than assuming (the person cannot do something).” We saw very little evidence that this had been improved upon. Whilst staff were frequently reporting in care notes ‘the person was supported’ to do things, there was limited information on how people were involved and how they were progressing. In 1 person’s care plan it stated they like to go food shopping. However, staff were restricting them from doing this as they said the person grabbed out for snacks. They had not considered other ways the person could supported to do their own food shopping or also consider any potential positive risk management.

We found at 1 person’s home the provider was still using 2 of the rooms as office space for staff. This was despite there only being 1 small communal lounge for the person and another tenant to share. They had not considered that one of these office rooms could be used as a separate area or sensory space. They also had not sought consent from the person and their representative to use one of the rooms in their home as an office.

However, relatives told us they were never restricted from visiting their loved ones whenever they wanted to. They also fed back that staff would encourage and prompt their family members with their personal care.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.