You are here

Archived: Brighter Care Good

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


Inspection carried out on 21 December 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 6 July 2016

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Brighter Care over two days on 6 July and 14 August 2016. We told the provider two days before our visit that we were coming to make sure that someone would be available to support the inspection and give us access to the agency’s records. Brighter Care provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 57 people were receiving a personal care service from the agency, most of whom were older people or people with physical needs.

We previously carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 24 & 30 June 2015 where we had no concerns. At this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service had a registered manager. 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 providers were also heavily involved in the day to day running of the service.

People told us that they felt the service protected their safety. Whilst we found that there were systems in place to manage risks to people, assessments and support were not always undertaken by appropriately trained staff.

Staff received training in the management of medicines and checks were carried out to ensure they were competent in this area. People told us that staff supported them with their medicines appropriately. Gaps in the recording of people’s medicines however meant that the agency could not provide adequate assurances that people received the right medicine at the right time.

People spoke highly of their regular care staff, but also told us that some staff were “Hurried” or “Rushed” when they came to them. The policy of scheduling some calls back to back meant that care staff did always have sufficient time to get from one person to another. Robust recruitment procedures had not always been followed. For example, some staff had been allowed to commence care calls prior to the all the required checks being in place.

Staff understood the need to safeguard people from the risk of harm and took this role seriously. Whilst staff were confident about raising any concerns with the management team, they were not always clear about reporting allegations to the relevant external agencies.

People had good relationships with the care staff who supported them and felt confident in contacting the office if they needed to. People felt that most staff had the skills and experience to meet their needs. The management team were committed to the on-going training and development of staff. For example, they provided staff with opportunities to develop their skills thorough accessing specialist and recognised courses.

Staff respected people and their decisions. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and demonstrated an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were clear about what they should do if a person refused to accept their care.

People received a personalised service that was responsive to their changing needs. Each person had a care plan that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge of the people they cared for and responded professionally and flexibly to their needs.

People were supported to maintain good health. The service worked in partnership with other healthcare professionals. Where people required help with eating and drinking, staff had a good understanding about how to support them effectively.

Staff were kind and compassionate and demonstrated the values of the agency to provide high quality care. As such, people received care that was provide