Brighter Home Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment and staffing. At this assessment, improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
 

This service scored 75 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents were effectively reported, investigated and notified to people’s relatives, health care professionals and authorities including CQC as needed.

Staff told us there was a positive learning culture with the service. Effective systems were in place to track incidents and update people’s care plans with information about changes in people’s support needs. There was a consistent approach of staff explaining how they recorded and reported any incidents. They understood their responsibility to record and report any incidents. Opportunities were given to consult and debrief staff after incidents to minimise the risk of reoccurrence. One staff member said, “The manager will speak to us afterwards and inform us of next steps as well.”
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s care and support requirements were assessed prior to the start of their care package to ensure the staff had the information they needed to safely support people and to understand people’s support preferences and individual risks. This was confirmed by people who were supported. One person explained “We had two members of staff visited and completed a very clear care plan, including an assessment of any potential risks.” This ensured a detailed record of people’s needs, risks and preferences and supported personalised care were in place from the outset.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

All staff had completed safeguarding training appropriate to their role. Managers were aware of their responsibility to investigate and report safeguarding concerns to the relevant authorities and CQC. A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to escalate concerns.

Staff understood the importance of recognising and reporting any safeguarding incidents and were confident the managers would act on their concerns. We received comments such as, “I fully understand my duty to recognise and report any concerns about abuse or neglect….. I feel confident that all concerns are taken seriously” and “The Brighter Homecare Management team listens carefully, acknowledges reports quickly, and takes appropriate action without unnecessary delay.”

People, and their relatives had no concerns about their safety when being supported by staff. One relative said, “Yes, [relative] feels perfectly safe with her carers." They explained they knew who to contact if they had any concerns.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Improvement had been made to the management of people’s care and associated risks. People’s risks had been identified and assessed. Risk management plans described the measures in place to reduce people’s risks and promote their safety such as supporting people with moving and handling and eating and drinking.

Staff confirmed they had access to the guidance they needed to support people and they were informed of changes in people’s support needs. We received comments such as; “We communicate changes well, for example with mobility or skin changes. We log this on the [name] app and inform managers.” Staff said they were given opportunities to shadow experienced team members to ensure they fully understood people’s needs and had access to the managers if they needed additional support. One staff member said, “I can always contact them [managers] if I have any queries or need any advice. They are always available to call.”

People and relatives felt staff understood the risks associated with people’s care and were always informed of any concerns relating to people’s well-being. One relative said, "I am informed immediately of any health problems promptly." Relatives told us they were actively involved in care planning and reviews and raised no concerns about the management of people’s risks.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental assessments were completed as part of the provider’s initial assessment process to help identify and manage potential risks in people’s homes before care started. Staff had referred people to the fire service to carry out fire safety checks of their homes as needed. The provider agreed to review their systems to ensure people had person-centred fire risk assessments that clearly outlined people’s fire and personal environmental risks.
 

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Improvement had been made in the induction, training and assessment of staff to support people safely.

Effective systems were in place to ensure people received their care calls in a timely manner. Staff said their rotas were realistic and they were given sufficient time to travel between their care calls. People and their relatives raised no concerns about the reliability and punctuality of their care calls. They told us staff had never missed a call and were rarely late and stayed for the full amount of time. One relative said, “They definitely stay the full amount of time and tend to all my [relatives] needs."

Staff felt trained and supported to carry out their role safely. New staff attended a structured induction and shadowing process and worked alongside experienced staff until they were assessed and signed off as confident and competent. Staff received ongoing training and support and were required to attend staff meetings. People and their relatives’ felt staff were suitably trained to meet their needs. Records showed most staff had been trained or were in progress in completing their training.

Safe recruitment practices were in place. The management team had carried out pre-employment checks, such as criminal records checks, right to work in the UK, references and proof of the person’s identity to ensure staff were of good character.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and their relatives told us staff always wore gloves and aprons when providing personal care and raised no concerns about the infection control practices of staff.

Staf told us they had been supported and trained to understand safe infection prevention and control practise and had access to sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the provider’s health and safety related policies.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Improvement had been made to management and administration of people’s medicines. The provider had met the breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment.

Staff who supported people with their medicines had received medicines training and were assessed as competent before administering medicines independently. This was confirmed by staff.

People’s care records described people’s prescribed medicines including ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines and support with barrier creams. Medicines Administration Records (MAR) charts were accurately completed, reflecting that medicines had been administered as prescribed.

People told us they were confident staff would support them with the management of their medicines as needed. One person said, “They [staff] are good at making sure that I take my medication". People who self-medicated said that staff always checked that they had taken their medicines.