Network Healthcare - Harrow

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 requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

We identified a breach of legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. Incidents and accidents were documented. However, we noted that there was a lack of information about lessons to be learnt following an incident/accident. We raised this with management who advised that they would address this and ensure this was consistently recorded.

The majority of people told us they were able to speak with staff and management. They were aware of the complaints process.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns outside of the management team to help prevent the development of a closed culture.

The provider helped ensure people experienced safe transitions and pathways. The registered manager assessed people’s needs before they provided care and support. They worked with health and social care professionals to help meet people’s needs.

Staff spoke confidently about the processes to report concerns and raise issues about people’s safety. They were also confident their concerns would be listened to and acted upon by management.

Procedures were in place to help safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff knew how to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and received training to help ensure they were up to date with best practice guidance. Staff knew how to report concerns and said that they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

People told us they felt safe in the presence of care staff. A person said, “I feel safe, they [care staff] are very good, they are helpful and kind.” A relative told us, “We feel safe with the carers.”

Staff received training and demonstrated an understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities.

Potential risks to people's safety were not always assessed appropriately and we found a breach of legal regulation. People's care records included some risk assessments. However, these contained limited information about how to support people to mitigate these risks. We also found that some risks had not been assessed or planned for. For example, 2 people had a history of strokes but there was not a risk assessment in place detailing signs to look out for and what action to take in the event of a stroke. Another person’s care plan stated that they were at risk of falls but there was a lack of detail as to how to reduce the risk of this person falling. We noted that a person’s care plan stated that they had ‘mobility issues’ but there was no risk assessment in place detailing how to support this person manage risks associated with this.

Risks to people had not always been assessed effectively and this meant people were at risk of receiving unsafe care and treatment. The lack of appropriate risk assessments meant that staff had not always been provided with suitable guidance to minimise the risk of people receiving unsafe care and lacked guidance on what to do in response to symptoms of these conditions.

We discussed this with registered manager who told us they would take action to address this issue.

The provider identified and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They helped to ensure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider assessed people’s homes for risks and took action to ensure people, staff and visitors remained safe.

People and relatives told us care staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). A person told us, “They wash their hands and wear gloves.”

Staff had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff said they had enough PPE.

Infection prevention and control policies were in place. Staff were given the information and guidance they needed.

People and relatives told us care staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). A person told us, “They wash their hands and wear gloves.”

Staff had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff said they had enough PPE.

Infection prevention and control policies were in place. Staff were given the information and guidance they needed.

Some improvements were needed with medicines management. Medicines were not always managed effectively and we found a breach of legal regulation. We looked at a sample of Medicines Administration Records (MARs) and found there were numerous instances where there were unexplained gaps on MARs or where they were not completed fully. We found that MARs did not clearly demonstrate whether people had received medicines as prescribed.

We also found some MARs did not have the name of the person documented on them and therefore it was difficult to identify who the MARs related to.

All MARs included a clear note stating they ‘should always be 100% complete and legible’ and ‘never leave a gap’. However, we found that staff were not always following this protocol.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines, and we saw documented evidence of this. However, we did not see evidence that medicines competency was checked.

Management did not consistently carry out MAR’s audits in a timely manner. They had failed to identify discrepancies and/or gaps in recording on people's MARs that we picked up during this assessment. On the day of the site visit, the registered manager was unable to show us the completed medicines audits for a sample of MARs date May and June 2025. They confirmed that these had not yet been carried out. We discussed the delay in checking MARs and how this could result in a delay in identifying medicine administration errors.

We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were not robust enough to demonstrate that medicines were always managed safely. We raised this with the registered manager who said that they would review their medicines processes and ensure MARs were in place where required.

People’s medicines support needs were recorded in their care records.