Radfield Home Care Guildford & Woking

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 registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were reported, investigated and action taken to minimise risks going forward. Staff were clear on their responsibility to report incidents and concerns. One staff member told us, “We don’t have many incidents, but we are told the process and inform a manager. There is always someone available on-call so we report to them and they respond.” Records were reviewed by the management team to ensure all required actions were in place and any themes or trends could be identified. This helped to identify and mitigate on-going risks to people’s safety.

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 supported people to experience safe transitions between services. Where people’s needs had changed following a hospital stay the manager would visit to ensure a reassessment was completed and any changes to people’s needs were recorded for staff to follow. The manager told us, “We work closely with the Hospital Discharge Team. We wait to hear from them regarding any changes and would then visit before discharge to check if there was anything they wanted and make sure everything was ready for them.”

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.

Relatives told us they felt safe with the staff supporting them. One relative told us, “[Family member] is most definitely safe. They have such a good connection and would never let them come to any harm.”

Staff received training in safeguarding and were able to describe the different types of abuse they should be alert to. They were aware of reporting procedures and how to escalate concerns should they feel this was required. One staff member told us, “The first priority is to make sure the person is safe and then report to office. If it’s urgent, I would report to emergency services. We must make sure everything is documented.”

Records showed that where concerns had arisen these were shared with the local authority safeguarding team. Additional information was provided and a review was completed to ensure learning going forward.

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 safe care were assessed and measures implemented to keep them safe. The provider ensured people and their relatives were involved in this process and that their decisions were respected. The manager told us, “It’s about giving people the facts in order to help them make those kinds of decisions for themselves, but we also take into account what we are able to do and what our responsibilities are.”

Relatives told us they felt risks to people’s safety were managed well. One relative told us, “The most reassuring thing is they communicate well and if there are changes needed, we can all be involved.” They went on to say this gave them confidence in the way the service was managed and the skills of the staff team.

Risk assessment information was built into people’s care plans such as information for staff regarding any specific health needs people may have, mobility needs, skin integrity and how to use equipment safely. The provider also responded well to events which put people at risk. For example, people, relatives and staff had been provided with ‘Beat the Heat’ guidance during a recent heatwave. In addition, regular conversations had taken place to ensure people were following guidance and did not need any additional support.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risk assessments were completed prior to people’s care starting to help ensure the safety of people and the staff supporting them. Risk assessments took into account access to the property and ensuring any equipment people needed could be used safely.

In addition, the provider asked all those starting to use the service if they wished to have a fire safety assessment and made referrals to Surrey Fire and Rescue as required. This helped to ensure people’s homes were fitted with smoke, and carbon dioxide monitors as required.

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 had established a structured approach to staff recruitment and induction. This helped to ensure staff received had a good understanding of the expectations and values of the service from their first interactions.

Staff received training and supervision to support them in their roles. One staff member told us, “We get really good training, and they can monitor where you are with things, so everything is very transparent. If you need any training, more shadowing in something or advice they are right there to help. They really care about their staff.”

Safe recruitment practices were followed. Staff files contained evidence of recruitment checks including references from previous employers, right to work and identity checks being completed. In addition, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were in place for all staff. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control. They told us they were always able to access personal protective equipment (PPE), and relatives told us staff always ensured PPE was worn when providing care. The provider’s quality assurance processes checked staff were using PPE correctly and monitored staff requests for equipment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Relatives told us staff supported their family members with their medicines well. One relative told us, “They know what they are doing and keep on top of things.”

Medicines administration records were fully completed to demonstrate people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. Prior to supporting people with their medicines staff completed training and their competency was assessed to ensure they were aware of safe medicines administration and recording guidance.

People’s care records contained information regarding the support they required with their medicines and their preferences. Protocols were in place to guide staff on the administration of medicines prescribed for use ‘as and when required’.