ResCare

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 we found the provider had made sufficient improvement and was no longer in breach of regulation.The rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 fostered a positive learning culture, using incidents, accidents and near misses to drive improvements in care and support. Effective monitoring and analysis helped identify learning and reduce the risk of recurrence.

Records showed leaders listened to concerns raised by people, relatives and staff. Systems were in place to record and review accidents and incidents, identify trends, and reduce future risks. Although incidents were rare, they were investigated and learning was shared with staff to improve practice and prevent recurrence. This demonstrated that improvements made since the previous assessment had been embedded and sustained.

The registered manager encouraged and supported the person and relatives to raise safety concerns. A person told us, “I like it here. Staff are good. If I’s worried about anything I’d tell [registered manager].” A relative told us they had no concerns about the service and felt staff and the registered manager were responsive, addressing any concerns or queries promptly.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were clear processes to support safe admissions and smooth transitions and returns to the service. This included initial assessments, supported with planned day visits and overnight stays to help people make informed decisions about moving in. After admission, people’s needs were reassessed to identify and address any changes.

Leaders ensured continuity of care through effective communication and partnership working with health and social care professionals. Systems enabled staff to quickly access and share relevant information during hospital transfers, supporting safe and coordinated transitions.

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.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect. During our visit, we observed a person speaking comfortably with the registered manager. Robust safeguarding systems were in place, supported by clear policies, procedures, staff recruitment and training. Leaders and staff were confident in recognising and reporting concerns about people's safety. The registered manager worked proactively with local partners when there were safeguarding concerns.

People and their family members told us they felt safe and confident in the care provided. When we asked a person how staff help them to feel safe, they told us, “Staff help me. They check the water temperature before I get in for a shower and cook meals for me.” A relative said, “I know [Person name] is safe and happy living there. If there’s anything they will call me and it’s sorted out together.”

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the legal framework for deprivation of liberty, ensuring people were supported in the least restrictive way possible. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made where required, and any associated conditions were being followed to keep people safe.

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.

Risks to people were identified and measures were in place to minimise the risk of harm to people. These included risk of falling, eating and drinking and health conditions. Support plans included clear instructions and incorporated guidance from health professionals. For example, people at risk of choking were referred to speech and language therapists, who assessed swallowing and recommended safe food and drink consistencies. This helped reduce the risk of avoidable harm and improved people's safety and wellbeing. This demonstrated improved management of people's health and wellbeing.

Positive risk-taking was encouraged, and people were supported to maintain their independence while managing risks. The person told us they were afraid of falling but felt supported to go out safely, saying, "I don't like it when it's busy, so we go out when it's not busy, noisy and there’s not many people around."

Records confirmed that staff and leaders' training was up to date, ensuring they were competent, and had the skills and knowledge to provide safe care and support. People’s personal emergency evacuation lans (PEEPs), emergency grab bags and hospital transfer information were reviewed and kept up to date.

Overall, these improvements demonstrated improvement made and sustained in managing risks, promoting people’s safety and wellbeing, and reducing the risk of avoidable harm.

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

The provider, registered manager and staff ensured the environment was safe for people. Improvements had been made since our last assessment, including the repairs and installation of window restrictors throughout the service to reduce the risk of falls from height and unwanted intruders.

Leaders had strengthened fire safety arrangements through regular fire drills and testing. There were improved records relating to property and equipment maintenance, and updated business continuity plans to cover emergencies such as fire, power outages and infectious disease outbreaks.

The service used a household model of care, with shared kitchens, lounges and dining areas, creating a homely environment where people could receive personalised and flexible support. The person had been involved in choosing the décor for their bedroom and told us, “My bedroom is decorated, it's lovely. It's perfect for me.” A relative had no concerns about the home and described it as ‘small and homely’.

Overall, these improvements demonstrated sustained progress in providing a safe environment for people to live in and helping to reduce the risk of avoidable harm.

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.

The registered manager ensured there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and keep them staff. We consistently received positive feedback from a person and relative about the staff, registered manager and the provider. A person told us, “I like the staff and the manager; they’re good to me.” A relative had no concerns about the staff, their knowledge or training and said, “It’s always the same staff and the manager is easy to talk to.”

Staff recruitment processes had improved. This included reviewing applications, interviewing candidates, verifying identity and employment history, and completing Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Records showed all staff had appropriate DBS checks in place which were renewed when required. This demonstrated sustained improvement in ensuring people were supported by safe and suitable staff.

Records confirmed new staff completed induction and mandatory training relevant to their roles since the last assessment. Staff received on-going supervision and appraisal from the registered manager to promote safe and effective practice.

Overall, these improvements demonstrated that the provider had taken effective action to ensure safe and sufficient staffing, supporting people’s safety, wellbeing and quality of care.

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.

The home was clean, well maintained and equipped with hand sanitiser throughout. Clear cleaning schedules included equipment, supported good hygiene standards and helped reduce the risk of infection.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed good infection prevention practices, including effective handwashing and hygienic food preparation. Records showed staff had up to date training in food preparation and infection prevention and control. Staff used colour-coded chopping boards to prevent cross-contamination.

Leaders had strengthened oversight of infection prevention and introduced enhanced environmental cleaning, including regular deep cleaning of bedrooms. These improvements supported high standards of hygiene and helped reduce the risk of infection transmission.

Overall, these improvements demonstrated strengthened oversight and effective systems to maintain hygiene standards and support safe infection prevention and control practices.

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.

The provider had made significant improvements to medicines management since the previous assessment. Staff had completed additional medicines management training, been assessed as competent, and administered medicines safely. Medicines were stored securely. Although no controlled medicines were in use, a controlled drugs cabinet had been ordered, demonstrating a proactive approach to future needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed. One person described how they were supported by staff to take their medicines, which demonstrated they had control and were supported safely. A relative said, “Having the blister pack has taken away the risk with tablets for both me and [Person name]; should have done this sooner.”

Improved medicines procedures ensured pharmacy-prepared blister packs were accurately booked in and out during respite stays, reducing the risk of errors.

Digital care records contained clear information on people's medicines, allergies and support needs. Appropriate assessments and authorisations were in place for self-administration. Medicines administration records (MAR) were accurately completed and matched medicines held, and PRN protocols provided clear instructions for staff. Although no harm occurred, PRN medicine effectiveness was not always recorded consistently; the registered manager addressed this immediately by strengthening monitoring to ensure effectiveness was documented whenever medicines were administered.

Overall, these improvements demonstrated safer medicines management and reduced the risk of medicine-related harm.