Bright Opportunities Enabling Services 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 79 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
Staff showed a detailed understanding of the person's needs, preferences, routines and communication. Managers tailored support around the person's goals, choices and interests, using easy-read information, communication aids, visual options and an understanding of non-verbal communication to ensure the person remained involved in decisions about their life. Records were detailed and reflected the person's individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Support was regularly reviewed and adapted in response to changes in the person's needs and feedback from those who knew them best. This meant the person experienced care that was centred around them as an individual, supporting them to live in the way they chose and maintain the routines, relationships and activities that were important to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
A small, stable team promoted continuity. A relative said, “There’s not a high turnover [of staff], they’re pretty steady, [the person] knows them all and they [staff] know them”. New staff shadowed experienced staff before supporting people independently. Staff said care plans were clear and regularly updated and used handovers, communication books, messages and team meetings to share information. A professional said, “The staff that work with [name] are a small established team who have worked with [name] for many years. They seem to know [name] well and I’m confident that they safely meet their needs”. The managers told us they didn’t use agency staff and covered shifts themselves if needed. This meant the person experienced joined-up care and support, with staff and services working together to ensure their needs were met consistently and effectively.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Staff used personalised approaches to support the person to communicate their views and wishes. This included using their preferred methods of communication and providing individualised support to help ensure their voice was heard. For example, accessible information such as meal planners and daily diaries had been used to help the person understand and contribute to their daily routines and decisions. Care plans contained information about communication preferences, which was particularly important as the person had limited or alternative methods of communications. This included the use of communication aids as well as how best to talk with the person, so they were able to process information.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Managers proactively sought feedback from the person’s relatives and staff through regular surveys, meetings and individual conversations. The registered manager recognised that formal feedback could be difficult to obtain, so managers also used conversations, social media, supervision and day service forms. For example, they recorded comments made by relatives about photographs shared in a closed social media group. This meant informal feedback was recognised and used, rather than being overlooked because it had not been provided through a formal process and assisted managers in understanding what relatives and staff felt about the service and activities.

Staff gave examples of changing planned activities when the person showed they were unhappy. A professional also identified this as an area of strength and described an occasion when staff noticed the person was unhappy while travelling to a swimming pool. Staff responded by changing the plans rather than continuing with an activity the person did not want. One staff member said, “Knowing some of their cues... prompts me to ask them if they are ready to leave.” This showed staff continually listened to the person through their verbal and non-verbal communication and acted promptly on what they communicated. This also meant the person remained in control of their day and was not expected to continue with activities that caused them discomfort or distress.

Managers involved the person and their family in decisions about care, safeguarding, reviews, recruitment and advocacy. Following in-depth reflection and feedback from the person’s relatives, a relative became directly involved in interviewing prospective staff. A staff member recruited through this process told us they had found it beneficial to have an in-depth conversation with the person’s relative before taking up their role. This gave the staff member a detailed understanding of the person from the outset and allowed someone who knew the person extremely well to influence who would provide their support.
This meant the person’s voice remained central to both their day-to-day support and wider decisions about how the service operated. This also meant staff and managers adapted how they listened, drew on the knowledge of people who knew the person well and made meaningful changes in response.

The provider made sure that the person could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service understood its limits and did not accept or continue arrangements it could not deliver safely. It worked with commissioners and professionals to prevent avoidable delay or gaps in support. Staff followed relevant professional guidance and ensured care records reflected any recommendations made, helping to ensure support remained consistent, coordinated, and responsive to the person's individual needs.

Staff and managers actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The person’s communication, disability, culture, protected characteristics and social circumstances were reflected in care planning. Managers checked whether the person experienced poorer access or outcomes and acted where inequality was identified. A relative described staff as understanding the person’s needs and responding appropriately.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of this assessment the service did not support anybody who was receiving care during the final stages of life. The provider had not explored end-of-life wishes specifically with the person or their relatives, however, at the time of the assessment the person was in good health. After the assessment, the provider planned to consider appropriate ways to discuss and record end-of-life wishes with the person or with their relatives.

The provider supported the person to work towards goals that were important to them and experiences that enhanced their confidence and quality of life. Staff encouraged them to explore new environments and develop new skills, including travelling by train to visit a busy city centre and experience different community settings. The person also enjoyed planning and going on holidays, which were important to them and provided opportunities to build memories. Staff supported them to plan and enjoy these experiences, which they valued greatly and regularly discussed with family, friends and staff.