Relate Care Solutions Ltd

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 newly registeredservice. This key question has been ratedgood.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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were reported, recorded and actioned. The registered manager told us no accidents or incidents had happened and described how they would analyse and look for patterns and trends.

The provider worked with people 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 systems in place to support transitioning between services. This included assessing people’s needs and involving relevant healthcare professionals, people and their relatives.

A business continuity plan was in place to ensure the service continued to work well for people during emergencies, outlining the actions to take in situations such as staffing shortages or severe weather.

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.

There were appropriate processes and procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse and neglect.

Staff had completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing. Staff knew how to share information with the local safeguarding authority and knew how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally.

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's care were assessed and well managed.

Risk assessments were tailored to each person and included relevant details such as, mobility, environmental factors and health conditions. Care plans detailed the steps required to minimise these risks.

Relatives told us they felt confident that risks were being appropriately managed.

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 registered manager or care coordinators carried out environmental risk assessments during initial gathering of information and assessing people’s needs; this ensured the identification and management of any risks.

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.

Relatives told us staff arrived on time and there had been no missed visits. A relative said, “99% of the time they are on time, but they will ring up if they're going to be late”.

Staff were safely recruited.

The provider’s training matrix showed staff had completed relevant mandatory training for the needs of people they were supporting.

Staff told us they had received supervisions and could discuss any issues with the management team, however we found supervision records were not always kept. Spot checks on staff practice were completed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and promptly shared concerns with the appropriate agencies.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to minimise the risk of infection.

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

Some aspects of medicines management were not always safely managed. We found examples of secondary dispensing taking place. We gave feedback to the registered manager about this issue and action was immediately taken to work with people and relatives to address this.

Staff’s medication competency had been assessed, but not always as frequently as recommended by best practice guidance.

Medication audits completed by the provider had not identified these issues.