You are here

Archived: Brighter Care Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

This inspection took place on 21 December 2017 and was announced. Brighter Care Limited is a domiciliary care service that provides care to people in their own home. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 60 people in their homes.

At the last inspection of July 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the way they managed risks to people. The service sent us an action plan on how they would make the required improvements. At this inspection, we found the action plan had been completed.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The leadership and management of the service was good. The person-centred approach and care people received was evident in all aspects of the service. Staff were passionate about providing high quality support to people and felt that managers listened to and acted upon their ideas and suggestions. Staff spoke highly of the managers and providers. Staff were motivated and empowered to develop professionally and in their careers. The provider rigorously assessed and monitored the quality of the service. They put steps in place to constantly improve quality.

The service responded to people’s needs in a very personalised way. Care plans were person-centred and focused on achieving the best possible outcomes for people in an individualised manner. The service adopted an individualised approach and focused on building positive relationship with people. The service actively involved and consulted with people and their relatives in planning and developing their care plan. The views of people and their relatives were considered and used.

Care records reflected people’s personal histories and backgrounds. Staff were matched with people taking into accounts their interests, culture and personalities. Staff were encouraged to report every incident and accident. The registered manager reviewed them and took actions to address them and reduce reoccurrence. Lessons were shared with staff.

Staff were trained to keep people safe and report any concern of abuse. The likelihood of people experiencing avoidable harm was therefore reduced. Senior staff members carried out an assessment of people’s needs and risks and developed plans to alleviate them. The service followed best practice guidelines in assessing people’s needs and risks.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to support people. Staff recruited were vetted to ensure they were suitable to deliver care and support to people. Staff provided people with the support they required to take their medicines safely.

People received care and support from trained, skilled and knowledgeable staff. People received the support they required to eat and drink. Staff supported people to maintain their health and access healthcare professionals as their needs required. The service had system in place to ensure they continued to receive the support they needed when they moved between services.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People consented to their care before they were delivered. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People received care from staff who were compassionate and caring. Staff supported people to make day to day decisions about their care. People were involved in plan

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding procedures and knew how to identify signs of abuse and the procedure for reporting their concerns.

People�s risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce them which staff understood.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited through a robust process. People told us there were enough staff available to meet people�s needs.

Staff were trained in medicines administration and supported people to receive their medicines safely.

Staff were trained and followed infection control procedures.

Staff were encouraged to report incidents and accidents. The registered manager reviewed records of these and shared learning with staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was effective.

The service assessed people�s needs in line with best practice guidelines. Staff were trained in how to support people effectively.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People were supported to meet their nutritional and hydration needs. Staff supported people where needed to access healthcare services. The service had systems in place to ensure they continued to receive the support they needed when they moved between services.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was caring. Staff focused on building positive relationships with people. Staff were matched with people taking into accounts their interests, culture and personalities. Staff knew people and understood their needs.

Care records reflected people�s personal histories and backgrounds. Staff were understanding, compassionate and sensitive towards people.

The service provided care and support to people in a way that promoted their independence. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff responded to people�s needs well. The service actively involved and consulted with people and their relatives in planning and developing their care plan. The views of people and their relatives were considered and used.

Care plans were person-centred and focused on achieving the best possible outcomes.

People were supported to do the things they enjoyed and participate in activities. The service assessed people�s cultural and religious needs and supported them to maintain these.

The service used suitable technology to respond to people�s needs in a timely way.

People knew how to complain about the service and the registered manager investigated and responded to each complaint about the service.

Staff were trained to provide end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The leadership and management of the service was good. The person-centred approach and care people received was apparent in all aspects of the service.

Staff were passionate about providing high quality support to people and felt that managers listened to and acted upon their ideas and suggestions.

The managers and providers were held in very high esteem by staff. Staff felt supported and encouraged to improve their practice and the support they provided people. Staff were motivated and empowered to develop professionally and in their careers.

The provider had robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The provider worked collaboratively with other organisations and professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people.