Radfield Home Care Bromley, Orpington & Beckenham

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

People told us they felt safe. The service ensured incidents and concerns were immediately investigated and changes made to people’s care and support where required. For example, a complaint was made about a person’s wellbeing and safety. The registered manager met with the person and their relative to agree a change to the care plan which was satisfactory to all and ensured the person’s individual wishes were respected. Staff were involved in discussions about safe practice through supervisions, team meetings and daily contact with the registered manager to ensure lessons were learned.

Staff liaised with healthcare professionals, such as GPs and district nurses, to ensure a joined-up approach to meeting people’s needs. People’s care plans included guidance provided by other professionals and staff ensured this was fully understood by people.

People were provided with accessible information about safeguarding and understood how to raise any concerns they might have. Staff had received safeguarding training. They understood their roles and responsibilities in ensuring people were safe and reporting any incidents or suspicions immediately. The service reported safeguarding concerns to the Local Authority when they arose and provided required notifications to the CQC.

People were involved in developing their individual risk assessments and risk management plans. These focused on enabling people to maintain their independence and respecting their individual choices. People’s risk management plans contained detailed guidance for staff on how to minimise risk while respecting people’s preferences.

Individual risk assessments had been carried out for people’s homes and the immediate environment. Risk management plans included guidance for staff on minimising any identified risks. These included checks of any care and mobility equipment before and after every use.

Staff were recruited safely. Staff received an induction before commencing work with people. Training on people’s individual needs, for example, catheter care, was also provided to staff when required. The registered manager also carried out spot checks of staff practice in people’s homes. Staff spoke positively about the quality of the training and support they received. People were supported by regular staff who knew them well. Back up staffing, including the registered manager, covered shifts when regular staff were absent. The registered manager told us there was ongoing recruitment taking place to build capacity as the services grows.

People’s risk assessments included guidance for staff on reducing and managing the risk of infection. This was supported by policies and procedures which reflected current best practice. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, including food safety. People confirmed staff used PPE when they were providing care.

At the time of our inspection, although staff were not directly administering medicines, they were reminding or prompting people with this. Staff were also involved in applying prescribed creams to people’s skin. Staff had maintained accurate records of these actions. These were regularly audited by the registered manager.