Brighter Home Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. The provider had not always notified CQC about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it.

This service scored 54 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. The provider and registered manager was aware of the importance of treating people equally, respecting their human rights and understanding the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff said the managers were approachable and had an open-door policy. However, we found the provider's culture was not consistently upheld across all areas of the service. The local authority was currently reviewing the provider's commissioning contract to identify any violations in their call monitoring and invoice systems.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, the registered managers and senior staff had lacked adequate support and personal development to develop and improve their skills to carry out their role effectively. This meant the registered managers and senior staff often lacked the necessary skills to effectively lead the service and implement improvements.

However, the provider and registered manager was responsive to our feedback and keen to make improvements to the service. Following the inspection, the provider has employed a senior manager to support the register manager to develop the service and making the necessary compliance improvements.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff said communication from the office was generally good and they felt comfortable raising concerns with the registered manager; however, some staff felt their issues regarding delayed staff rotas remained unresolved.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff raised no concerns about how they were treated. Some staff referred to the staff and the managers in the service as ‘a family’.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to their registration requirements. We identified the provider had not always notified CQC about certain changes in their registration, events and incidents that affect the service or the people who use it. The registered manager did not operate systems to carry out a regular analysis to identify for any trends or patterns and take action.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. The provider did not operate effective governance systems to manage and monitor the service and drive improvements.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Systems were not in place to manage and oversee significant incidents and concerns. There was no overarching incidents, complaints and safeguarding matrix to enable the registered manager to track and monitor the progress of any concerns. Whilst staff reported incident, accidents and safeguarding events concerns to the management team; the incidents and the actions taken were not comprehensively recorded or analysed. This meant the registered manager would be unable to identify trends and patterns and take the appropriate action.

The provider had not operated effective systems to ensure people’s care and medicines records were accurate and completed and reviewed. Accurate record of people’s consent to care and decisions taken in relation to people’s care and those lawfully acting on their behalf were not maintained.

The provider had not considered the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 when sharing confidential information with staff.

The provider had not ensured effective systems were in place to induct staff and to ensure staff were supported and trained in line with the provider’s requirements.

The provider’s policies did not reflect current national and local guidance. This meant staff did not have access to current guidance and good practices to support their training.

Whilst the provider was responsive to our feedback and was implementing an electronic care management system to assist them in monitoring the service; further time was needed to ensure their actions would be embedded and sustained.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with health care professionals and escalate concerns to the relevant authorities as needed. However, not all professionals felt staff had taken on board their recommendations or communicated with professionals whether their recommendations had been implemented and successful.

Some professionals felt staff had not fully implemented or communicated the outcomes of their recommendations. Professional assessments and advice were not clearly documented in people’s care plans, which meant staff may be unaware of how to support people. For example, there were no records of people’s recommended exercise and how staff should support them to carry out the exercise.

Whilst the provider said they were committed to learning, innovation to drive improvement across the service, there was limited evidence of this. The registered manager shared examples of how the service had been responsive to changes in people’s needs and emergency incidents to improve the quality of life for people. However, we found limited evidence of staff and people being involved in shared learning and reflective practices to drive improvement and the quality of care for people. For example, records of staff support, and team meetings did not demonstrate reflective discussions and problem solving to enhance the quality of service.