Archived: Bright Brains Global Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate. This meant there were significant shortfalls in people’s care and support.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s consent not being sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

As found at the previous assessment, leaders and staff did not act in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated code of practice, or their own MCA policy. Where people lacked capacity to make complex decisions where restrictions were in place, the provider had not undertaken decision specific capacity assessments. For example, we were told all people lacked capacity to make complex decisions. We saw 1 person had an audio monitor that was used 24 hours a day (to monitor for seizures) when they were in their room. However, the capacity assessment around this was contained within a multiple assessment document. There were no records of any discussions around what other least restrictive options had been considered.

Other capacity assessments the provider sent us were around individual care decisions and not around the restrictions placed on people including the locked front doors and people being under constant supervision with 1 or 2 staff. We also noted that some of the capacity assessments were copied and pasted from a person’s previous home documents from years prior as their previous care setting had been referenced.