You are here

Radfield Home Care Bexhill, Hastings & Battle Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 November 2018

Radfield Home Care Hastings and Rother is a domiciliary care agency which specialises in the care of older people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service provision varied from minimum one-hour visits daily to support people with personal care but they also provided companionship services, home help services and dementia care services.

Not everyone using Radfield Home Care received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, the service provided personal care support to ten people.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was on leave at the time of inspection but the owner and the field care supervisor were present during the inspection.

The organisation had effective systems to monitor and review the quality of the care provided. They were aware that as the service developed and increased in size the systems to monitor and review the service would also need to be developed further.

People told us they had continuity of carers. They said staff always arrived on time and stayed for their allocated time. They told us staff always completed the tasks required of them along with any additional requests. One person told us, they will do extras such as putting the washing out and bring it in on their next visit later in the day.”

People were supported by staff who demonstrated kindness and had a caring approach. Staff knew people well. They understood people’s physical, social and emotional needs. We received numerous positive comments. For example, “The staff are wonderful. I’m a very lucky person.” A relative told us, “The staff are marvellous, they keep us informed, phone daily and if we have concerns we can talk to the owner.”

People knew how to complain but everyone said they had no need to. They said they would have no hesitation in picking up the phone if needed as they were confident the office staff would address any issue brought to their attention.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. There were thorough recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible staff were suitable and safe to work with people. As part of the assessment process risk assessments were carried out in relation to people’s homes and to their individual needs and where necessary, actions were taken to mitigate risks to reduce the risk of accidents or injuries.

There were good systems for the management of medicines. These ensured people received support in a safe way. There was information in care plans about how people liked to take their medicines. Care staff had received training on medicines and there were systems to monitor their competency in this area.

Spot checks were carried out at regular intervals to monitor staff performance. Staff attended regular training to ensure they could meet people’s needs. There was a thorough induction to the service and staff felt confident to meet people’s needs before they worked independently. People told us they valued the fact that office staff came to check on staff as this meant they cared about their staff.

The owner and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA are regulations that have to be followed to ensure people who cannot make decisions for themselves are protected. People were supported to have maximum choice a

Inspection areas



Updated 2 November 2018

The service was safe.

There were safe procedures for the management of people�s medicines.

Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with the people they supported and knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Thorough recruitment checks were carried out and there were enough staff to meet people�s needs.



Updated 2 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff sought people�s consent before providing all aspects of care and support. Staff received specialist training to support people effectively.

People told us support was provided in the way people wanted to receive it.

The management team and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.



Updated 2 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were kind, patient and professional and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff were committed to promoting people's independence and supporting them to make choices.

Staff adapted their approach to meet people�s individual needs and to ensure care was provided in a way that met their particular needs and wishes.



Updated 2 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care tailored to their preferences. People were supported by staff that knew them well including their likes and dislikes.

Support plans contained person-centred guidance to ensure staff knew how to support people.

There was a detailed complaint procedure and people told us they knew how to complain if they needed to.



Updated 2 November 2018

The service was well led.

There were good communication systems to update staff and ensure they were aware of changes to care packages and to changes within the agency.

There was good governance and regular audits were carried out to monitor and improve the care provided.

There was a positive and open culture at the agency. Staff told us the owner and office staff were extremely supportive and approachable. They were readily available and responded to what staff told them.