You are here

Reagle Home Care Services (RHC) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 November 2017

The office inspection took place on 9 October 2017 and was announced. On the 10 October 2017 we contacted people and relatives to obtain feedback about the service they received.

Reagle Home Care Services (RHC) provides personal care and support to people in their own homes in the Middlesex and Hertfordshire area. At the time of the inspection they were supporting 37 people.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we inspected this service in October 2016 we found that the provider had failed to ensure there was sufficient evidence to show that the process to recruit staff safely had been followed consistently and there were not adequate systems to monitor and improve the quality of the services provided. At this comprehensive inspection we found there were clear processes in place to recruit staff safely and systems had been put in place to monitor the quality of the service.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from potential abuse and knew how to identify the risks associated with abuse.

There were assessments of potential risks to people and how to mitigate them. Further written developments were needed in regard to people whose emotional health and subsequent behaviour might require different ways of support. However, staff were clear on their role and how to keep people safe.

People who used the service and their relatives told us the service was able to meet their needs. People's care and support needs were kept under review to help ensure that they continued to be met.

Staff were regularly supported and valued by the manager and senior staff. They received ongoing training and had regular staff meetings to share any concerns or hear new developments.

People’s consent was sought before care was offered and the registered manager and staff were familiar with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where required people were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy diet and health professionals were contacted on people’s behalf if needed.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in planning and reviewing their care. People felt their views were listened to and staff supported them as individuals. People’s confidentiality was promoted as records were held securely.

People who used the service felt confident to raise any concerns and were confident that they would be managed appropriately. Staff said that they were fully supported by the registered manager

People spoke positively of the registered manager and how the service was run. There were clear systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. People were asked their feedback of the service and their responses were used to further improve the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 November 2017

The service was safe

Staff were aware of how to identify and report concerns regarding a person’s safety or welfare.

Risk management plans were in place to protect and promote people's safety although further development was needed to detail possible support required for people with emotional health needs.

Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were fit, able and qualified to do their jobs.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by trained staff.



Updated 10 November 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supervised.

People’s consent was sought before care was offered.

People were supported to eat and drink where needed.

People were supported to access health care professionals as necessary.



Updated 10 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and respect.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and wishes and responded accordingly.

People's dignity and privacy was promoted.



Updated 10 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People's care and support needs were kept under regular review.

People's concerns were taken seriously.



Updated 10 November 2017

The service was well led.

People had confidence in the staff and the management team.

There were arrangements in place to monitor, identify and manage the quality of the service.

The culture at the service was positive, open and inclusive.