Reliant Care Limited - Hammersmith

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.

There was a positive learning culture, where staff learnt from things that went wrong. Staff reported incidents, accidents and concerns. Managers investigated these and took action to improve the service when needed. Relatives told us they were informed and involved when things went wrong. A relative commented, “If any incident happens, staff log this, they say how it happened and we get confirmation of the steps they take to make sure it does not happen again.” Staff told us they were confident improvements were made following incidents. A staff member told us, “Incidents and concerns are reported immediately to the line manager. They are investigated promptly, documented and addressed.”

The provider carried out regular audits of all incidents to ensure these were dealt with correctly and to identify themes and areas where improvements should be made.

There were systems to support people to have safe transitions between services. Staff shared information with external professionals to ensure they understood about people’s needs. Staff escorted people to appointments and stayed with them to help advocate for them. The registered manager told us that some people found it difficult meeting new people. They told us they obtained photographs of any potential visitors or new professionals and staff. They shared these with people and explained what was happening to help people feel safe and understand about the situations.

There were systems to safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. There were clear policies and procedures. Staff completed training and were able to describe the processes for recognising and reporting abuse. The provider worked with others to ensure any concerns were investigated and people were protected from avoidable harm.

Where people were identified as being unable to make informed choices about their care, the provider requested legal authorisations to make these decisions on their behalf and in their best interests.

The use of any restrictions was only carried out when this was part of a person’s planned care and when this was the only option to keep them or others safe. Restrictions were closely monitored to make sure people were safeguarded from abuse. The provider had taken action to reduce restrictions and empower people. For example, they had worked with 2 people to help them better understand about their medicines. As a result, people now made choices about their medicines, which had previously been administered covertly (legally but without their knowledge).

Staff assessed and planned for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. They worked with external professionals and relatives to ensure they followed best practice guidance and planned support in a personalised way. Risk management plans were regularly reviewed and updated. There were plans for staff to follow in emergency situations to ensure people were safe. Relatives told us people received safe care.

Some people expressed anxiety or distress regarding aspects of care and support. Staff worked closely with specialist teams of professionals to develop individual plans to help reduce anxiety. Staff provided support in the least restrictive way. All restrictive practices were assessed and regularly monitored. Staff used personalised communication techniques to support people. The provider was able to demonstrate how a consistent approach from staff had improved outcomes for people.

Staff undertook training to ensure they knew how to safely care for people. When we were invited into some people’s homes, we saw they were being supported appropriately and safely.

Staff assessed risks within people’s home environments. They worked with landlords and other professionals to ensure these risks were mitigated. Staff undertook regular checks on fire safety and health and safety.

People had the equipment they needed to stay safe. This was regularly checked and serviced. Staff understood how to use this.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People’s needs were individually assessed and staffing reflected these assessments. People did not have to wait for care. There was good staff retention and staff knew people well. New staff completed a comprehensive induction and spent time shadowing experienced workers to help ensure people received consistent care. Relatives told us there were enough staff.

There were suitable systems for recruiting staff including a range of checks and assessments of their knowledge, skills and competencies. All staff completed regular training to help them understand people’s needs and best practice. Staff had regular supervision meetings and appraisals with managers to help ensure they worked appropriately and in line with procedures.

There were systems to help prevent and control infection. Staff undertook training to understand about good infection prevention and control. Staff had access to personal protective equipment when needed. Staff supported people to maintain clean home environments and to understand about the risks of poor infection management. Relatives told us they thought people’s homes were clean and well-maintained.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were procedures to ensure the safe management of medicines. Staff completed training to understand about this. Managers regularly assessed their competencies and skills. Medicines were stored appropriately. Staff kept clear records relating to medicines. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to review people’s medicines and make sure they were right for them. Managers carried out regular audits of medicines management. Relatives told us they were happy with the support people had with medicines.