Reignscare 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 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.

The service was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 53 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was not always a culture of safety and learning. Risks to people’s safety had not always been assessed and planned for. Care plans and risk assessments had not been updated when people experienced changes. We discussed our findings with the registered manager who agreed that systems needed improving to ensure risks were appropriately assessed and planned for.

However, the provider had procedures for responding to accidents, incidents and things that went wrong. Staff told us they understood these and knew what to do. A staff member explained, “We report any issues to the manager.”

The provider supported people to have safe transitions between services. Staff worked with external professionals and shared information to help make sure people received joined up care. An external professional explained staff asked them for and shared updates with them.

There were systems to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff undertook training to understand about safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how they recognised forms of abuse and how they would respond to concerns. There had not been any safeguarding concerns at the service. The registered manager knew their responsibilities to help protect people from avoidable harm. Information about safeguarding processes was shared with staff in a recent newsletter.

The provider had not always assessed and planned for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. Where risks had been identified, the provider had failed to develop plans to mitigate these or to keep people safe. There was limited information about people’s health conditions and individual needs. Risk management plans were basic and did not always ensure people and staff would be safe.

Failure to assess and plan for risks meant that people may not receive safe or suitable support. We discussed our findings with the registered manager. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of risks when talking about the people they supported.

The provider had not assessed the risks within people’s home environments and how these would be managed. Whilst the provider was not responsible for people’s living environments, they are required to ensure these are safe for people and staff whilst they are providing care and support. There were no records to show they had done this. For 1 person, care records contained information about the place they had previously lived. This had not been updated to reflect their current home. We received feedback from the local authority that fire risks had not been safely managed in the supported living scheme where 1 person lived. The provider had not recorded how risks relating to this were mitigated.

However, records of care showed that staff made checks on safety within people’s homes during care visits. Staff also confirmed this, telling us they checked people were safe within their home and addressed any safety issues.

The provider’s systems for checking staff suitability during recruitment were not robust enough. The provider had failed to follow up discrepancies and gaps in people’s employment histories. They had not verified references. Staff did not complete comprehensive inductions or training when they started work. The provider had not assessed staff skills and competencies to make sure they were suitable.

The registered manager and staff told us they had completed a range of training. However, there were discrepancies in records of training. Staff had not completed training to help them understand about the specific needs of people who they were supporting.

Records of staff supervision and appraisals were not personalised and staff did not receive regular formal individual support to discuss and appraise their work.

We discussed our findings with the registered manager. They acknowledged that systems and records needed to improve. Staff explained they had worked for other care providers and had undertaken training to enable them to understand their role. Staff told us they received informal support from the registered manager.

People were supported by the same regular staff. Staff arrived on time.

The provider had systems to help prevent and control infections. They had relevant procedures. Staff were able to access personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed. Staff helped to ensure people lived in clean environments. Staff completed training about infection prevention and control.

At the time of our assessment, staff did not support anyone with their medicines. However, there was insufficient information about people’s medicines, the potential side effects of these and any risks. One person managed their own medicines. The risks relating to this had not been assessed. The registered manager had not assessed staff knowledge and competencies relating to medicines management. We discussed this with the registered manager so they could make the required improvements to ensure they followed best practice guidance for supporting people with their medicines.