Ravens Care Kettering

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 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.

There was a positive learning culture that supported safety. Staff understood their responsibility to report concerns and took action to promote people’s safety. A staff member said, “We can report incidents using the App (digital care system). The care manager will call us afterwards for a debrief so we can learn from the incident and if any changes are needed to how we support that person.” Records confirmed that staff provided a full account, detailing what occurred, who was involved, the type of incident, and the actions taken.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon.

Management maintained effective oversight of incidents, ensuring transparency and accountability. They reviewed incident reports to ensure appropriate actions had been taken and, where required, reported them to relevant agencies. Incidents were analysed to identify themes or trends, enabling actions to be implemented to reduce the risk of recurrence. Lessons learned were shared with staff to support improvements in practice.

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.

Relatives confirmed assessments were carried out and felt reassured that staff had the appropriate skills to meet their family member’s needs. Staff received training and demonstrated an understanding of the specific needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people.

Management and staff understood the importance of coordinated and safe care pathways. Care records demonstrated effective communication with hospitals, local authorities, and health professionals prior to the commencement of care packages. Established care pathways were followed to ensure support was person-centred, consistent, and responsive.

Systems were in place to share relevant information when people’s needs changed or when they moved between services, helping to reduce the risk of errors or omissions. For example, up -to-date emergency grab sheets and hospital passports were accessible to staff to support safe and timely transitions to hospital. These arrangements supported well-coordinated care, continuity of support, and ensured health professionals had the information needed in the event of a medical emergency.

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 and worked collaboratively with the local safeguarding authority.

The safeguarding policy provided clear guidance for staff to follow. This information was available in formats people could understand. Staff had completed relevant safeguarding training and felt confident to recognise, and report concerns both internally and to external agencies.A staff member said, “Safeguarding means protecting people from harm and abuse. If I was to see staff abusing a person, I must report it to my senior and manager. I'm confident managers would act on it immediately.”

People and relatives expressed no concerns about feeling safe with staff. One relative said, “[Person name] is safe with staff; their regular ones are [Staff names]; they like them; they're both fantastic and usually on time.”

Staff told us and records confirmed where they supported people with their finance, a system was in place to ensure finances were reconciled and audited regularly.

Safeguarding concerns were clearly documented and reviewed as part of the provider’s oversight arrangements. A safeguarding matrix was in place, and referrals were made to the local authority when required. Records showed incidents, including those involving physical intervention, were logged accurately and incorporated into monthly analysis to support learning.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Records showed relatives, with the appropriate legal authority, had been involved in making best interest decisions for their family member where the individual lacked capacity to make certain decisions.

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 health and safety, including environmental risks, and social support had been assessed, managed, and monitored. These were person-centred and reflected individuals’ communication needs, behavioural patterns, and known triggers. Support plans guided staff in delivering care and support. Plans guided staff on least restrictive approaches when people became anxious or distressed and were reviewed regularly to remain current.

Relatives expressed no concerns about their family member’s safety and told us staff understood individuals well and communicated changes effectively. Relatives felt risks were well managed, changes were monitored, and people’s safety was maintained at home and in the community.

Staff and leaders were trained to manage risks, including health and safety and specialist training aligned to people’s needs while promoting independence. Hospital passports were up to date and accessible in emergencies.

Staff understood how non-verbal individuals expressed distress and monitored signs, enabling timely staff to provide personalised de‑escalation. This informed safe decision-making, including whether community access was appropriate.

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

People and relatives had no concerns with how they were supported to maintain a safe environment. A relative told us, “We've made sure everything here (in the home) is safe for [Person name]; I'm sure staff will let us know if something's amiss.” As people were supported in their own homes, the provider was not responsible for maintaining the premises; however, systems were in place to assess environmental risks, identify and report any concerns to the relative so issues could be addressed promptly.

Overall environmental risks were managed and monitored which promoted individual’s safety.

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.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff told us that rota and staffing was well managed, and unplanned absences were covered to promote their safety and wellbeing.

People were supported by a consistent and reliable staff team with the appropriate training to deliver their care. A relative said, “[Person name] has the same regular carers, two female staff only. They are always punctual and reliable and can't remember when they’ve had any different staff.” A relative confirmed care was provided by the same regular staff who were punctual and reliable. This demonstrated staff worked in a coordinated way, with deployment monitored and arrangements in place to cover unplanned absences.

Staff were recruited safely. Appropriate recruitment checks had been including a Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) check before staff began working at the service, which helped ensure people were supported by staff who were suitable for their roles.

Staff received induction and role‑specific training, including training to support people with learning disabilities or autistic people in line with current standards. One staff member said, “Management provides us with good training and opportunities to develop. We have regular support, supervision and communication is good.” Staff competencies were regularly assessed, and training was kept up to date. Staff received supervision and performance feedback, ensuring they remained skilled, knowledgeable, and aligned with best practice. This demonstrated a positive and supportive management approach, which helped staff manage their workload effectively and maintain safe care for people.

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.

The provider had effective systems and policies in place to prevent and control infection. Staff completed infection prevention and control training and had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), which they used in line with current guidance to reduce the risk of cross infection. Staff practices were monitored through supervision, observations, and quality checks, helping ensure care was delivered in a clean, safe, and well‑managed environment.

Relatives had no concerns about staff practice in relation to hygiene practices and had observed staff washing their hands and using gloves and aprons. A relative confirmed PPE was readily available and safely stored for staff use.

People’s support plans identified when PPE was required, such as during personal care or when handling soiled items. One support plan lacked instructions on the safe disposal of continence aids and PPE; this was promptly updated by the care manager, with no evidence of risk identified.

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.

People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to do so. Relatives raised no concerns about medicines support, and one person said they felt confident with staff administering their medicines. People’s medicines were stored safely in their home. Support plans provided clear guidance for staff to follow, and medicines records confirmed routine medicines were given as prescribed.

The provider had effective systems and policies to ensure medicines were managed safely. Staff practice was monitored through supervision, spot checks, and audits of medicines and records.