Renai Support Services

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Robust processes were in place to ensure all accidents and incidents were recorded and investigated. One staff member explained. “We have an accident book. For incidents involving residents, we complete forms and input them onto the system. That flags up to every staff member, so they are aware of what has happened, and all managers are notified instantly.”

The provider maintained oversight of incidents, identifying themes, trends, and any wider actions needed to keep people safe. For example, when one person experienced an increased number of falls outdoors, analysis revealed their walking frame was no longer suitable. With advice and support from external professionals, the person switched to a four-wheeled frame, which significantly improved their safety when mobilising.

When things went wrong, learning was identified and shared across the team to minimise the risk of recurrence and enhance safety. A staff member told us, “As a staff group, if anyone has any kind of issue, we all talk about it. We have the manager and a senior here—they listen to us, and we work together to improve the service.”

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 service worked collaboratively with people, their families, and external agencies to ensure consistency and continuity of care during transitions. This included supporting people when moving into supported living houses, transferring to alternative settings, and attending hospital appointments.

Several people, along with some staff members, moved to one of the supported living houses following the closure of their previous residential home. A professional shared their experience:
“I have personally supported the transition of two people from a decommissioned residence to [the service]. The process was handled with sensitivity, patience, and professionalism by the care staff, turning what could have been a very traumatic experience into a successful and positive one.”

When individuals required hospital care or admission to other healthcare settings, the service used hospital passports. These documents ensured that each person’s individual needs and risks were clearly understood by healthcare professionals, supporting safe and person-centred care.

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 peoples' 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.

People were supported by staff who had a clear understanding of safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff received appropriate safeguarding training to help protect people from abuse. One member of staff told us, “If I witnessed any abuse I would document and approach the manager confidentially. If I saw them, I would stop it and speak to the staff member. I would phone CQC. We had a card given to us with all the numbers we would need to ring in that event.”

We observed that people appeared comfortable and relaxed with the staff supporting them. Relatives confirmed this. Comments included, “I know she's happy. She always asks when she is going back. They are very caring” and “She is safe at the service… She seems very happy. I do ask, is everything ok? She says, I’m alright. I’m happy.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet peoples' needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Identified risks were documented and strategies developed to mitigate them. There was clear evidence that people were actively involved in this process, including the development of mitigation plans.

Risk assessments empowered people to take positive risks, for example when using kitchen appliances to prepare meals or when out in the community. Staff were provided with guidance on the least restrictive measures to manage risks. For example, one person at high risk of falls was encouraged to maintain their independence and quality of life by moving freely and independently around their home. Measures included keeping floor surfaces clear of trip hazards and encouraging rest when the person felt tired, as they were more unsteady at these times.

A ’missing persons’ plan was in place where required, with key information to enable services to respond quickly and effectively should the person go missing.

Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in circumstances.

People were supported to understand risks and how to keep themselves safe, such as checking the identity of visitors before allowing them into their home.

The provider also reviewed risk assessments completed by external agencies, such as activity providers, to ensure they were effective and maintained peoples' safety.

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

The provider ensured equipment was maintained and serviced as required. They were not responsible for the maintenance of the premises because they supported people in their own homes. There were systems in place to ensure any environmental issues were identified and reported to the landlord’s maintenance team.

The provider completed environmental audits and safety processes were established, for example in relation to fire risks. This was confirmed by staff who told us, “We do evacuation drills, and we go over what to do if the fire bells go off. We go through that with staff and residents, and we explain to the residents why it is so important. One lady does not like the sounds, but we tell her how important it is if you hear it and over time she has come to understand.”

Care plans contained Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) detailing peoples' individual support needs in the event of an emergency. For example, in relation to mobility or communication difficulties.

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 peoples' individual needs.

People were supported by a consistent and committed staff team, with detailed knowledge of their needs, risks, and personal preferences. This was confirmed by external professionals. A relative commented, “They are doing a superb job of supporting [family member]. Absolutely first class. The care is superb. Attention to detail is brilliant.”

Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training to ensure they could meet peoples' needs effectively. One staff member told us, “When I started, I went in and met the residents and did the fire stuff…I did the online training and then I shadowed on each and every resident there until I was comfortable with everything. I was supported by [management team] throughout so it was good. I have had a supervision with the director, and I got to mention which parts I was most comfortable with and where I wanted more training.”

Specialist training was provided where required, enabling staff to provide tailored support. Processes were in place to ensure staff training met the requirements of the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice, which sets out the mandatory training standards for staff supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

Staff reported feeling well supported through regular supervisions, team meetings, and an approachable management team. The provider actively encouraged staff to complete additional vocational qualifications and progress in their careers.

Safe employment processes protected people from the recruitment of unsuitable staff.

Staffing levels were calculated based on people’s commissioned hours, ensuring they received one to one support alongside shared care hours. Agency staff were not used, with any gaps covered by the management team to maintain consistency. One member of staff said, “The staffing level is really good, and we are never short – honestly it is one of the only places I have worked where they have no issues with staffing - it is so rare.”

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.

There was an ‘infection prevention lead’ at the service with responsibility for ensuring adequate provision of personal protective equipment. (PPE). Staff received infection prevention and control (IPC) training and had access to PPE. This was used appropriately to minimise the risk of contamination and the spread of infection when supporting people with their personal care needs. Staff confirmed, “People are quite independent but when we do have to support with personal care, PPE is used. Hand hygiene is in place, and all is disposed of in the correct way. If anyone has a sickness bug, we use full PPE.”

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.

Medicines were managed safely overall. Staff received appropriate training and competency assessments, which was confirmed by staff and supported by external health and social care professionals. Medicines were stored safely in line with guidance, and people received them according to their preferences.

Governance systems were effective; however, one person did not have a protocol in place for ‘as required’ medicines, in line with best practice. Risks were mitigated because staff knew the person well and understood when they might need the medication. The provider acted immediately on feedback during the assessment and contacted the person’s GP to draw up a protocol.