Rainham House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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. Managers discussed care practice and routines with staff during team meetings and supervision identifying lessons that could be learnt to improve the delivery of care to the person. The provider told us how they discussed with staff the importance of recognising when things go wrong, the need to be transparent and learn and continually improve practice. A staff member told us, “We talk about what issues are happening in the house, listen to people’s [other staff] opinions and talk about things that have gone wrong and how to put them right.”

The provider worked with the person 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. The provider had a process for assessing people before they moved into the service ensuring both their needs and wishes were identified.

The deputy manager told us about the need for compatibility. They told us, “We have to respect that it is people’s home so whoever moves in has to get on so everyone can feel at ease with one another.”

The provider worked with the person and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve it. Staff understood what safeguarding meant and knew what to report. They were able to give us examples of the types of abuse they might see and who they would report it to if they saw it. A staff member told us, “I would contact my manager or deputy manager if I had a concern, there are others I could talk to such as the Police or the local authority if I had to, but I feel I can talk freely to my manager about anything that concerns me.”

The registered manager told us how they talk to staff about the importance of being transparent and sharing information with others and how this was necessary to ensure concerns would be addressed if they arose.

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

Information written about the person was clear and as part of the overall care plan demonstrated a good depth of knowledge about the person. Risks were assessed both in the home and when the person went out into the community and balanced what was a risk to the person against the need to maintain their independence.Staff told us how continual monitoring of the person meant they were able to identify changes to risks and how this helped to keep the information in the risk assessment up to date.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. Audits of the environment were undertaken to minimise the risks to the person. Owing to the needs of the person the provider had given thought to ways in which the home could maintain a homely feel whilst meeting the complex needs of the person. Staff devised ways of being able to keep pictures on the walls, so the service had a homely feel. They also overcame challenges of storing items such as clothing the person did not want in their room but found a solution which meant the person still had access when they needed it.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff had worked in the service for a long time and had a good understanding of the needs of the person they supported.

The provider carried out checks on prospective staff to help ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting. These included employment references, the right to work in the UK and criminal records checks.

Staff received regular supervision and felt supported by the registered manager and deputy manager. Staff felt like they had access to the right training that enabled them to effectively do their jobs. A staff member told us, “The manager will provide us with whatever training and support we need. If there is extra training we don’t have, the manager will find it for us to make sure we have the knowledge we need.”

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 service was clean and cleaning tasks were undertaken by staff which was monitored by the management of the service.

The provider had policies to safeguard people from the risk of infection and training for staff on how to minimise and deal with the risk of infections. Staff were provided with personal protective clothing to help reduce the risk of cross contamination.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were recorded in the safest way. Staff had to hand write information onto medicines administration charts when medicines came into the service which raised a risk of mistakes occurring. At the time of our visit the provider was in the process of transferring to an electronic care planning system but was still using paper to record aspects of support such as medicines. We suggested to the provider to consider moving towards the use of their electronic system without further delay and away from paper to avoid potential errors in recording and unnecessary duplication.