Redlands House

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.

This service scored 72 (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. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. For example, one staff member told us, “Accidents are discussed at every handover, so all staff are made aware. It is also discussed how to try and avoid the accident from happening again. I feel that the provider is always going out of their way to make [safety] improvements and do a good job.”

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. For example, the service, in collaboration with the integrated care board, provided a short-term reablement and recovery service for up to 6 people at any one time. The external professionals who supported this service provided consistently positive feedback about the staff’s abilities, skills and experience in ensuring people received safe and continuous care whilst working in collaboration with other health and social care professionals.

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. Staff, through feedback and discussions as part of this assessment, demonstrated they had a good understanding of what safeguarding meant, and how to report any concerns. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately with other stakeholders and understood their responsibility in ensuring people were protected from harm and abuse.

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. People’s relatives told us they had confidence in the service’s ability to keep their family member’s safe and staff were able to demonstrate they understood the risks to people and how to reduce them. The records we viewed confirmed risks had been identified, recorded, mitigated and reviewed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. For example, we found the environment and equipment to be clean and well-maintained, and the service had systems in place to maintain this such as regular equipment servicing and inspection. The records we viewed confirmed this.

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. The people and staff we spoke with told us this, our observations confirmed this and the records we viewed corroborated our findings. One relative we spoke with told us, “The staff are very well trained. We really work well together, the home and I, and that is reassuring.”

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. They did this by having effective systems in place such as staff training, risk assessments, infection prevention and control policies and procedures and using personal protective equipment. One relative explained how well the service had recently managed an infectious outbreak. They told us, “The staff wear their gloves and such, and when they recently had [an infectious disease outbreak] I saw staff wiping door handles and rails all the time; it’s reassuring and the place is clean and tidy.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Systems were in place to safely administer people’s medicines and staff had received medication training and had their competency regularly assessed. Records we checked showed that overall people were having their regular medicines administered safely. However, there were gaps in some records and some information available to staff for the management of people’s medicines needed improvements such as for the safe application of medicated ski n patches . The registered manager took prompt action to address these shortfalls.