Richford Gate

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

The provider had thorough safeguarding policies, procedures, and processes that followed current, relevant legislation. The systems demonstrated safety concerns were reported to the management team, recorded, frequently monitored and raised with appropriate bodies in a timely way. Where appropriate, people and those important to them were involved in this process and informed about what action would be taken to keep people safe. A person told us, “It’s safe here with [staff].”

Staff we spoke with understood safeguarding, their responsibilities and were confident in reporting procedures. They demonstrated a clear understanding of Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) principles, placing emphasis on individual outcomes and supporting people’s choices. A staff member said, “If in doubt pass the information to the [registered] manager.” These comments reflected a well-embedded safeguarding framework that was understood and applied consistently across the team in line with guidance.

The management team had ensured they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), these were followed appropriately.

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.

Any risks to people were assessed, and care plans enabled staff to prevent or minimise those risks identified. One relative said they did not think a person’s care plan was up to date, although the care plans we sampled were. This meant staff had up to date information about the action they needed to take to manage those risks. The provider systems enabled, and supported staff to report concerns, incidents, and accidents in a timely way, minimise risks, and avoid them being repeated. The management team completed regular audits and care plans were updated if new risks were identified. A person said, “I’m moving to a new place. I feel ready and prepared and know what I need to do to stay safe.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 provider staff recruitment processes were thorough, and records demonstrated they were followed and regularly reviewed. Staff received comprehensive training that was based on the Skills for Care Common induction standards. They form part of the Care Certificate which is an agreed set of standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in the health and social sectors. Disciplinary and capability processes were fair and regularly reviewed to ensure there was no disadvantage based on any specific protected equality characteristics. The processes enabled staff to receive appropriate, comprehensive training that was relevant to their role. A relative told us, “The staff are okay and there are enough of them.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.