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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 29 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We found there was improved life histories for 2 people however staff we spoke who supported these people still lacked this knowledge. The remaining 2 people, the provider still had not got this information despite it being 5 months since the last assessment. This knowledge enhances relationships, strengthens identity, and allows for more meaningful interactions.

We found that aside from when people were visiting relatives there was no evidence everyone had the opportunity to go out in the evening. One relative told us, “The issue I have sometimes is he has to be back by 6pm because they changeover at 8pm and they have to log their activities. Sometimes it restricts (person) staying out a bit longer.” Everyone including those people with a learning disability, is entitled to the same choices, dignity, and community access as other people in line with RSRCRC. The provider failed to ensure this was the case for the people they supported.

However, relatives fed back that in the main, people were supported with a variety of meaningful activities during the day.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

At the previous assessment, we found people were not always encouraged to feedback any areas for improvements. There were no surveys provided to people in an accessible format to gain any feedback from them. At this assessment there was only 1 survey completed with 1 person. However, the questions posed to the person would have been too complex for them to understand. People have various communication aids referenced in their care plans however there was no evidence that these are being used to ensure staff gained valuable feedback from people. There was no reference to using social stories where these may have been appropriate particularly where people are anxious with medical appointments.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.