Riseup Healthcare 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

At our last assessment, we found the management of accidents and incidents failed to ensure appropriate actions were always taken to mitigate future risk and/or identify trends. At this assessment, we found the provider had a new robust and detailed management system in place that helped ensure accidents and incidents were fully captured, actioned and mitigated thus further protecting people from the risk of harm.

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. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements in how they sought, and recorded, information from health professionals. For example, for one person who required a modified diet, we saw the health professional’s formal recommendations had been sought and replicated in the person’s care plan to help ensure their safety. We received consistently positive feedback from the health professionals who contacted us as part of this assessment. One told us, “I have found the service to work proactively with professionals to ensure packages of care continue to meet individuals' assessed needs. Where a person's circumstances have changed, they have been open and transparent in their feedback regarding the level of support required. They have provided honest observations to inform reviews and have worked collaboratively when care packages have needed to be increased or reduced to reflect a person's current needs.”

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. Improvements had been made in the management of safeguarding. A detailed and robust safeguarding management system was now in place that provided the service, and other professionals who required it, an overview of what incidents had occurred, what action was taken and the lessons learnt. It also included information on when referrals to other professionals had been made. All staff had received training in safeguarding and, since our last assessment, the registered manager had undertaken further safeguarding training to help ensure their knowledge and further embed the improved management system. All the people who provided us with feedback told us they felt safe receiving the service.

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. At our last assessment we saw that whilst staff were managing risks in practice, care records did not reflect this. At this assessment, the provider had made significant improvements in relation to this. For example, we saw that people had been assessed for risks such as pressure ulcers, falls, infections and health conditions such as diabetes, with mitigating measures clearly recorded for staff to follow. We saw that care records now contained detailed and accurate information in relation to risk management. Staff had also received training in associated topics and told us this better prepared them for supporting people. Furthermore, the people who used the service, and their relatives, consistently told us staff were adept at managing risk. For example, one person said, “Staff are very careful with my skin as it’s very delicate. Staff can recognise the problem and if they see swelling or bruises, they will inform and alert me.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We saw that the provider continued to assess people’s home environments for any risks to help keep people, and their staff, safe.

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. We continued to receive consistently good feedback on the skills, abilities, knowledge, and approach of staff. People told us staff were kind, patient, and caring and had the skills to support them effectively. One person’s relative said, “We had an incident where [family member’s] health declined and staff took a very stressful situation and made it easier.” Records confirmed that staff had been robustly recruited, trained, supported, and assessed to ensure they had the right attributes, skills, and values to support 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. At this assessment, we saw that not only was the provider continuing to practically manage the risk of infections well, but they had also now assessed people in relation to this risk as required; records confirmed this. People also told us staff were diligent in ensuring good hygiene and infection prevention and control practices including washing their hands regularly and using personal protective equipment (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. People told us this and records confirmed that. People told us they had no concerns in relation to medicines administration and management. One relative explained the extra measures staff went to in relation to medicines administration to ensure their family member took their medicines consistently and as prescribed. Records confirmed medicines were administered as prescribed and followed good practice guidance. Staff had received training in managing and administering medicines.