Rebound Healthcare Limited

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated inadequate.
This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.
 

This service scored 34 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider did not demonstrate they had processes and systems to effectively manage people’s safety, mitigate risks and share lessons learnt.

The provider did not work well with people and health system partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had not demonstrated how they assessed and monitored a person’s support needs when they started using the service, which is required to ensure safe and effective care is delivered.

The provider did not work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider did not share concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider did not demonstrate their systems operated effectively to ensure people’s safety and protection from abuse. The nominated individual was absent from the service and had not notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The provider did not demonstrate that staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse.

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider did not demonstrate care plan and risk assessment information was sufficient to identify and mitigate risks. Care plan information stated a person was at risk of falls. The care plan gave no information about previous falls or health conditions. The use of mobility aids was documented in the care plan. However, there was no information of what mobility aids were used or how to use them safely. There was no guidance for staff about how to specifically support the person safely when mobilising and transferring.
 

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not make sure that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The care plan reviewed did not detail how to maintain a safe environment to deliver care. There were no details of the person’s home location, how staff would enter the property and any environmental risks to be aware of. The person’s care plan stated they were at risk of falls and required mobility aids. There were no details of what these aids were and how they would be safely used.

The provider did not make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider did not demonstrate how they recruited, inducted, trained and supervised staff adequately to ensure people’s care was delivered safely. The providers recruitment policy and procedure did not adequately detail steps in the recruitment process. Information within the document was inaccurate. For example, it stated Rebound Healthcare Limited supported the service user group of people with learning disabilities. However, Rebound Healthcare Limited is not registered to support people with a learning disability.

The provider did not demonstrate that a person received care at their scheduled times or for their scheduled duration as the care plan did not provide this information. The care record stated they were at risk of falls and required their nutrition and hydration to be observed. The provider did not demonstrate staff had received training in these areas.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Care plan information did not contain details or guidance on how the risks of infection would be minimised. The provider did not demonstrate staff had training in infection, prevention and control.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

The provider did not demonstrate there were systems to effectively manage people’s medicines. The provider’s statement of purpose indicated the service gave support with people’s medicines where required. Care plan information provided no details of the persons GP, health conditions or any allergies.