We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brightcare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brightcare, you can give feedback on this service.
Brightcare provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection, there were five people living at Brightcare and the sixth bedroom was being used as a dining room. The service is a chalet bungalow with all accommodation for people provided on the ground floor. It is set in a residential area of St Marys Bay village. Each person has a single room and there is a communal bathroom, shower room, kitchen, dining room and lounge. There is a rear enclosed garden at the back of the bungalow with level access. There is parking available at the service as well as on street parking.
The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People received their medicines safely and when they should. Risks were assessed and staff took steps to keep people safe whilst encouraging their independence wherever possible.
People were involved in the planning of their care and support where possible. Care plans contained information about people’s wishes and preferences. They showed people’s skills in relation to tasks and what support they required from staff, in order that their independence was maintained. People had reviews of their care and support where they and/or their representatives were able to discuss any concerns or aspirations.
People were encouraged and supported to make their own decisions and choices and staff respected these. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant. The registered manager understood this process.
People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. New staff underwent an induction programme, which included shadowing experienced staff, until staff were competent to work on their own. Staff received training relevant to their role. Staff had opportunities for one to one meetings and team meetings, to enable them to carry out their duties effectively. The majority of staff had gained qualifications in health and social care. People had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff and staff rotas were based on people’s needs.
People were relaxed in staff’s company and staff listened and acted on what they said or gestures and body language. People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was respected. Staff were kind and patient in their approach, but also used good humour. Staff had built up relationships with people and were familiar with their life stories and preferences.
People had a varied diet and could be involved in planning the menus. Staff supported people’s special dietary needs. People had a programme of leisure activities and went out and about as they wished.
People were supported to maintain good health and attend appointments and check-ups. Appropriate referrals were made to health professionals when required. People did not have any concerns, but felt comfortable in raising issues. Their feedback was gained both informally and formally. The registered manager had an open door policy and took action to address any concerns or issues straightaway to help ensure the service ran smoothly. There were audits and checkes to ensure the service ran effectively.
.
The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have learning disabilities, including mental health and some complex and challenging physical needs.
Accommodation is provided in a detached house in a quiet residential area of St. Mary’s Bay. Accommodation is arranged over the ground floor and each person had their own bedroom. The home benefits from an enclosed back garden with wheelchair ramps and seating areas.
This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the time of inspection four people lived at the service. We met and spoke with each person. People told us that they liked living in the home, they were happy, they liked the staff and the staff were kind. They thought the home provided a safe, relaxed and comfortable living environment.
Our inspection found that whilst the service offered people a homely environment and their care needs were being supported; there were shortfalls in some areas that required improvement.
Arrangements did not ensure the correct storage of medicines and records for disposal of medicines were incomplete.
Items requiring replacement, maintenance or repair, although identified had not been completed and time scales were not set to ensure this happened.
People’s goals and wishes were not progressed to encourage development of learning and exploring new activities and challenges.
Authorisations and decisions, made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to deprive people of their liberty, were not notified to the Care Quality Commission when they needed to be.
The service had access to the local authority safeguarding protocols, and incidents that warranted referrals to the authority were made.
Quality assurance checks were not wholly effective in identifying some shortfalls or ensuring known concerns were progressed to their conclusion.
Checks ensured sufficient medicines were ordered, the right amount was given and that people received the right medicines when they were supposed to.
All staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, they understood in what circumstances a person may need to be referred and when there was a need for best interest meetings to take place.
People told us that they felt safe in the service and when they were out with staff.
People had personalised records detailing their care and support, including well developed support plans for their health needs.
People were supported to access routine and specialist health care appointments. People told us staff showed concern when they were unwell and took appropriate action.
People, relatives and visiting professionals had opportunities to provide feedback about the service both informally and formally. Feedback received had been positive.
People felt the service was well-led. The registered manager worked alongside staff; they took action to address any concerns or issues straightaway to help ensure the service ran smoothly.
The provider had a set of values, which included treating everyone as an individual, working together as an inclusive team and respecting each other. Staff were aware of these and they were followed through into practice.
We found a number of breaches the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We saw that staff treated people respectfully and supported them in the ways that they preferred. People were supported to make choices about their daily lives and staff understood people’s methods of communication and how they indicated their choices.
Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew who to contact if they had any safeguarding concerns.
Overall there were enough staff on duty to give people the support they needed. We saw that people were comfortable with staff and the interactions between staff and people were positive and respectful.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included organisational and internal audits for gaining the views of people’s relatives and health and social care professionals who supported people living at the service.
In our discussions with staff they demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the people living at the service. This was confirmed by our observations and the record keeping.
Care records showed that people's relatives were involved in care planning and reviews to help make decisions about people’s lives and the care they were receiving. We saw that staff had involved health professionals in a timely manner ensuring that people's needs were attended to. When needs changed, we found that records had been updated to reflect this.
Staff spoken with demonstrated good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm. We saw staff were provided with training relevant to their job role. Staff were supervised by senior staff and talked of feeling supported by the management team.
Records showed the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service. We saw that people’s relatives were asked their views about the home and information from other professionals had been sought.