You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 February 2019

This inspection took place on 14, 17 and 19 December 2018 and it was announced.

This was the first comprehensive inspection carried out at Bright Care Agency since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2017.

Not everyone using Bright Care Agency received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the provider confirmed 14 people received the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

The provider was also the registered manager for the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider had submitted notifications of other events and incidents in a timely way to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). However, the provider had moved to a new business and location address in September 2018 and had not notified CQC of the change of address. The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, requires providers to notify CQC, of any changes to their registration. The failure to notify CQC of the change of address meant the provider was in breach of a condition of their registration.

People felt safe. Staff received safeguarding training to enable them to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report abuse. Individualised risk management plans promoted people's safety. Staffing numbers were appropriate to keep people safe.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the service. Medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidelines. Infection control procedures were followed to protect people from spread of infection risks.

People's diverse needs were identified at assessment, and the care and support was provided in line with their assessed needs. Staff received training based on best practice guidelines and received support and supervision to further develop their skills and knowledge.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts; to access health support services and attend health appointments as and when required.

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 supported this practice.

People's choices were respected, and their privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff provided support in a caring and supportive way. People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints about the service.

Governance systems were used to oversee, improve and drive continuous improvement across the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 22 February 2019

The service was safe.

People received care from staff that knew how to safeguard them from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed regularly or as people’s needs changed.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed, and staff were effectively deployed to meet people’s needs.

Staff followed safe medicines management and infection control procedures.



Updated 22 February 2019

The service was effective.

People’s care was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance.

Staff received training and support to effectively carry out their roles.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy balanced diet.

People's consent was sought before staff provided care.



Updated 22 February 2019

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and respect and their privacy and dignity were maintained and respected.

People and relatives were supported to be involved in planning their care.



Updated 22 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their needs.

People had information on how to make complaints and the provider had procedures in place to respond to any complaints.

People were supported to discuss advance care plans and how they wanted their end of life needs met.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 February 2019

The service was not consistently well led.

The provider had not kept the Care Quality Commission informed of changes to their registration. Failure to notify CQC of the change of address meant the provider was in breach of a condition of their registration.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the service and drive continual improvement of the service.