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 changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to notification of incidents and good governance. 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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The culture and ethos of service had improved since our last assessment of the service. There was a positive culture that supported continuous improvement and learning from errors. Staff said they had seen an improvement in the culture of the service and the new systems. One staff member said, “I like how Brighter Homecare treats people and the changes have been really positive.”

Staff and the management team had a clear understanding about their roles and responsibilities. Staff reported the service was stable and they felt supported to deliver good quality care.

Staff said they felt the management team was approachable and caring. The provider held regular meetings with the staff to ensure they were informed of any changes in the service. One staff member told us communication within the service was good and said, “We sometimes gather in the office together, but we also have had online ones. Usually, the meetings are monthly.” Another staff member said, “The managers are easy to speak to and create an open environment. They take time to listen, take concerns seriously, and provide clear responses or actions. I feel comfortable raising anything that worries me or could affect care quality.”
 

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The managers of the service worked well together and combined their knowledge, and experience to effectively manage the service. They had effectively reviewed and improved the systems to ensure people were provided with good quality care.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of the assessment; however, the provider explained a manager had been identified and was being put forward to register with CQC.

People and their relatives felt the service was managed well. One person explained they felt the service was well run and had no reason to doubt this and said the staff always answer the phone when contacted.

One relative explained the managers always get back to them and said, “[Manager] runs a very tight and efficient ship". They went on to say the manager was always contactable. Another relative felt the managers were very responsive and dedicated and said “Absolutely. The service certainly seems well-led and flexible. It is well managed and the care packages are well implemented.”

Staff spoke positively of the management team and said comments like “All the managers are good. They help us and they reply to our calls, they are good”; “The managers are very friendly, and we can talk through any problems with them, they are very good” and “I think management are very helpful and we can speak to them about anything.”
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a range of systems in place to encourage open communication. People and their relatives reported communication from the service was good. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and found the managers approachable and responsive. There was evidence staff had attended regular supervision and staff meetings which provided opportunities for them to raise concerns, discuss changes and recognise good practices within the service. One staff member said, “If I have any problems, we can raise this before our scheduled supervision. We can always call and raise anything at any time.”
 

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 the workforce culture of the service and told us their wellbeing was actively promoted by the provider.
 

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Improvement had been made in the provider’s accountability and good governance systems.
The provider had met the breach of regulations relating to good governance.

The provider and managers had improved their governance processes and carried out regular audits and quality monitoring across key areas of the service such as monitoring people’s care and medicine records, staff support and training. Effective systems were in place to ensure people’s care, medicine and risk management records were accurate and complete. Effective processes had been established to record and report incidents, and safeguarding concerns, identify trends and report to the appropriate authorities including notifying CQC.

Managers had good oversight of people’s care calls, timings and ensured people were supported by a familiar staff team who knew them well. Records showed most staff had been trained or were in progress in completing their training.

The provider regularly sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff to help monitor the care being provided and to drive improvement.
 

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff and managers understood their role to collaboratively work with key partners such as people’s GPs and associated health care professionals. The managers provided several examples of how they had referred and worked with professionals such as working with district nurses to help protect people’s skin integrity. This was confirmed by staff. One staff member said, “Sometimes we work with clients and the district nurse, and they appreciate the work we do. We work well with them.”

Relatives praised staff's responsiveness in flagging and escalating concerns to appropriate professionals. One relative said “I've seen the benefits of regular professional care in all aspects. For example, [staff] have liaised with NHS staff/GP. They have organised OT appointments and even arranged home assessment by the fire service.”
 

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Since our last assessment, the provider had focused on developing their practices and processes to ensure they sit in line with the provider’s policies and national homecare guidance. There was evidence at this assessment of a commitment to continuously improve and to further develop to sustain the improvements that had been made. The provider was responsive to our feedback during the assessment and said they remained committed to delivering safe and effective care to people. A contingency plan was in place which was being actioned.