Reline Care 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 remained as requires improvement This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 62 (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 did not always demonstrate a proactive and positive culture of learning. The provider had not analysed call monitoring data to understand and address concerns with staff punctuality. Learning had not been identified and embedded despite issues being found with call monitoring processes and staff punctuality at the last 2 inspections.

However, when safety concerns had been raised the provider had listened and investigated them to reach satisfactory conclusions. They shared their findings with staff and discussed lessons learnt in order to improve future practice. Findings were discussed within team meetings and included improving practice in areas, such as medicines management and record keeping.

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 provider told us they aimed to respond to referrals withing 48 hours. This included a thorough assessment and the implementation of a care plan to meet people’s needs.

The provider responded to incidents when they occurred. Staff knew what to report and the timescales for reporting. The provider told us they had close working relationships with local authorities and would inform them immediately with any concerns they had.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff told us they were trained to spot signs of abuse and were able to give us examples of situations they would need to report. They were clear about who they needed to report to within their organisation as well as other professional bodies such as the local authority and the Care Quality Commission.

The provider told us they understood their responsibilities in relation to responding to safeguarding concerns and about working with partner agencies when concerns arose.People and their families felt confident the provider was able to keep people safe and they were able to talk to the registered manager if they had any concerns

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically about the risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe. There were robust risk assessments in place which covered all aspects of people’s care needs. Staff were able to describe the risks people faced whilst balancing the need for people to be as independent as possible.

A family member told us how staff were able use equipment to support their loved one in order to keep the person safe and manage risks. They said, “They’re all really good at using the equipment and it’s done in such a caring manner.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. As part of the initial assessment, the provider carried out risk assessments of the environment and continued to monitor this. Staff told us they would talk to the people, their families and senior staff if there were repairs required to equipment which compromised a person’s safety.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. At our last inspection, people and relatives gave mixed comments about timekeeping and people told us staff were late on occasions. At this assessment, we reviewed data the provider collected to monitor the timeliness of when people received care visits to support them. We saw a significant number over a period of a month were late. In some cases, staff were more than an hour late. We also found staff were, at times, early by more than one hour. Whilst the provider made efforts to inform people of their lateness, this meant people were not receiving care at consistent times and could not guarantee support would happen when they wanted it. A number of people and their families we spoke with made references to staff lateness and one family member added, “Although they ring to tell me they will be late, I have had to make a complaint about it.”

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 received training to help them understand the risk of infections and the measures needed to stop them spreading. The provider had a policy in place to guide staff in preventing the spread of infectious diseases. They kept a supply of personal protective equipment in their offices which staff could access easily when required.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff received training in safe medication administration. The provider had electronic medication administration which meant checks could be carried out to ensure administration practices could be monitored. The provider had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow which were in line with the national institute for health and care excellence guidance.