Rafael Home

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.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and share learning through regular supervision, team meetings and daily communication systems. Leaders promoted reflection and continuous improvement, and staff described feeling supported to learn and develop. Learning from people’s changing needs was used to improve practice, for example adapting support approaches as people aged and responding to health risks.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider consistently involved people in managing risks and supported positive risk‑taking to promote independence and wellbeing. Staff demonstrated an exceptional understanding of people’s individual needs, communication styles and life histories, and used this knowledge to support people to understand and manage risks in meaningful and personalised ways. Staff worked collaboratively with people to develop individual risk management plans and positive risk‑taking was embedded across the service. For example, in relation to risks in the kitchen. People enjoyed baking and cooking, and staff worked with people to access cooking equipment safely. One person liked to have their own space and preferred to spend more time in their room. They had been assessed as being safe to use kettles and had their own tea and coffee making facilities in their room, giving them the independence to do this on their own and safely.

Staff worked with people to develop their understanding of risks at the service and in the community. This enabled staff to work with people to reduce restrictions and develop people’s independence. This included negotiating with one person’s funding authority to remove one to one staffing hours and enable the person to have more freedom. Risks were reviewed dynamically as people’s abilities and confidence increased. Restrictions were used only where necessary and were regularly reviewed, ensuring people’s independence was maximised while keeping them safe. This person‑centred, empowering approach consistently went beyond expected practice and was embedded across the staff team.

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. Staff followed good hand hygiene practices and used personal protective equipment appropriately during care and food preparation. Food safety systems were in place, including temperature monitoring, food labelling and daily checks, and the service held a 5‑star food hygiene rating. Cleaning schedules and audits supported a clean environment. People were supported to follow hygiene routines as part of daily life, reducing infection risks.