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 82 (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 was exceptional at making 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.
People lived in a house which reflected their personalities, interests and preferences. Bedrooms contained personal belongings, photographs and decorations chosen by people, and communal areas were comfortable, homely and well maintained. This helped create environments which supported people's wellbeing and independence.
Professionals described a strengths-based approach which promoted independence and choice. One professional said, “My client was supported and was able to demonstrate what they were able to do and in a strengths based way and what simple choices they could make.” Another professional told us, “I see them working in a person-centred way when delivering care.”
Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to provide support which reflected what was important to them. One staff member described supporting a person to celebrate a milestone birthday with a personalised trip including swimming at a special location, a hotel stay and dining out. When part of the planned itinerary became unavailable, staff quickly arranged an alternative visit to a wildlife park to feed animals based on the person's interests. This meant the experience remained meaningful and centred around what mattered to the person.
Staff showed a detailed understanding of people's needs, preferences, routines and communication. Managers tailored support around people's goals and interests using easy-read information, social stories, communication aids, visual choices and an understanding of non-verbal communication, to ensure people remained involved in decisions about their life. Records were detailed and reflected people's individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Support was regularly reviewed and adapted in response to changes in people's needs and feedback from those who knew them best. For example, people would inform the manager if they noticed a pattern with words or activities which created the slightest distress for one person and this was shared with the team to monitor and then avoid.
Support was regularly reviewed and adapted in response to changes in people's needs and feedback from those who knew them best. A staff member said, “We have a good relationship with the parents” and a relative said, “We have regular reviews.” This meant people received care which reflected their individual needs and preferences, enabling them to 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, “They’ve got regular face and if they do change they’re usually ok with it because they shadow the new one". Staff said care plans were clear and regularly updated and used handovers, communication books, messages and team meetings to share information. A professional said, “They are particularly good at liaising with GP and accessing different health services that benefit the client.” The managers told us they didn’t use agency staff and covered shifts themselves if needed. This meant people 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 people 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, writing out a 6-step plan on a white board which had been used to help a person understand and contribute to their daily routines and decisions. Care plans contained information about communication preferences, which was particularly important as people had limited or alternative methods of communications. This included the use of communication aids as well as how best to talk with people, 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 people’s relatives and staff, using regular surveys, meetings, and individual conversations. The registered manager recognised that formal feedback could be difficult to obtain, so they also used conversations, social media, supervision, surveys and day service forms. For example, noting down relative comments on pictures posted on a closed social media group. Staff gave an example of supporting someone swimming then halfway through the planned activity they saw they were unhappy so supported them out of the pool and took them on a local walk. Feedback we received from professionals also highlighted this as an area of strength.
Staff recognised that people express enjoyment and engagement in different ways and were careful not to make assumptions based on appearance or body language alone. For example, one person often sat quietly during a community disco and appeared disengaged. A manager explored whether they would prefer to stay at home and enjoy their own buffet instead, using an easy-read format to support their communication and decision-making. On each occasion, the person clearly chose to attend the disco. Staff respected this choice and continued to support their participation. The person also chose to help tidy up after events, providing another way for them to contribute and be involved. This meant staff and managers listened to and respected the person's preferences, ensuring support was tailored to their wishes rather than assumptions about what they might enjoy.
Managers involved people and families in decisions, safeguarding, reviews, recruitment, and advocacy. A relative said, “I am totally involved. I attend staff meetings, reviews, and we message if there are any concerns". This meant people’s views and preferences were represented and considered in their care, even when they could not communicate them directly.

The provider made sure that people 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 people'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. People’s communication, disability, culture, protected characteristics and social circumstances were reflected in care planning. Managers checked whether people experienced poorer access or outcomes and acted where inequality was identified. A relative described staff as understanding people’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 people or their relatives, however, at the time of the assessment people were in good health. After the assessment, the provider planned to consider appropriate ways to discuss and record end-of-life wishes with people or with their relatives. The provider supported people to work towards goals that were important to them and experiences that enhanced their confidence and quality of life. For example, helping someone to regularly stay in contact with family.