Rhesus 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

People told us they felt safe and knew who to contact if they had any concerns. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns they had to the management team. There were enough staff to support people with their needs. Staff received training to meet the range of people’s needs at the service. Staff received support through supervision to support their learning and improve their working practice. Recruitment checks were completed by the management team to ensure only staff deemed suitable and fit, would be employed.

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 and relatives told us they received safe care, and knew how to raise concerns, if needed. A relative told us, "I would know what to do if I had any concerns about [Person’s name’s] care. We are happy with everything so far, and don't have any concerns.”

Staff told us the management team were helpful and approachable. The management team told us they had not had any incidents or accidents so far. They told us if an accident or incident occurred, they would ensure a review was completed and act on any learning that may be needed.

Staff completed training to support them to carry out their duties safely. The management team told us analysis of accidents and incidents would be carried out to review trends and themes. However, at the time of our assessment no such events had occurred, so we were unable assess how effective this analysis would be. There was a complaints policy in place. We identified some learning and need for improvement in people’s care records, and this was responded to in a positive way by the management team.

People and relatives told us they were involved in developing their care plans and had a copy of their care plan. A relative told us, the registered manager had completed an assessment before their family member received care from the provider. They told us, “We are very happy with how everything is going so far.”

Staff and the management team told us they understood the importance of involving people in planning their care to ensure safe, personalised care was provided. A staff member told us, “I would always ask the person how they want to be supported. We would always read the care plan first.”

We received no feedback from partners.

Records we reviewed demonstrated the provider assessed people’s needs prior to providing care. However, some people’s care records lacked information and guidance for staff on known risks to the person, including risks associated with people’s health and mobility needs. This increased the risk of people receiving unsafe care, and a clear awareness of risks not being maintained across their care journey. However, staff and managers we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people’s risks.

People told us they felt safe receiving care and support from the service. A person we spoke with said, “I do feel safe.” A relative we spoke with said, “If I had any concerns I would call the office, I don’t have any concerns.”

Staff understood how to recognise and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff understood what they needed to report and how they should report any concerns of abuse. A staff member told us, “I know how to recognise any abuse, and I would tell the manager. I am confident they would report it to the safeguarding team.” The registered manager understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. The provider had a process in place for investigating abuse concerns.

The provider had processes in place for the management and oversight of safeguarding concerns. There were appropriate policies in place to guide the staff team. Staff received training in safeguarding and there were forums in place for staff to share any concerns they may have including individual supervisions. However, these systems had not yet been tested because at the time of our assessment there had been no safeguarding concerns raised by or about the service.

People were supported safely by staff who knew them well. A relative told us, “The staff are good, they are always on time, and they always ask what needs doing. Yes, I do think [Person’s name] is safe.”

Staff told us they were able to support people safely. Staff told us they read people’s care plans and risk assessments and spoke with people and their relatives, so they knew how to support them safely. Staff told us any changes in a person’s care needs would be escalated to the management team. They told us when a person’s needs changed this was responded to appropriately by the registered manager. For example, staff told us when a person’s care needs had changed, the management had ensured staffing levels were increased so the person’s needs could be met safely.

Risks to people were assessed and some risk reduction measures were detailed in people’s care records. However, there was a lack of clear information and guidance for staff to follow in relation to some known risks to people. For example, one person’s moving and handling risk assessment lacked guidance on how staff should support them with their mobility. Some people’s health conditions were detailed in the care records, but there was limited information about how these may impact on how staff delivered the person’s care.

People and relatives told us staff visited them at their home prior to providing care to ensure support could be provided safely.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to ensure people were safe in their environment. Staff were aware of who to call in the event of an emergency, and how to escalate concerns to the management team. The registered manager told us a risk assessment was completed prior to providing care, to ensure the environment was safe for both people and staff.

Processes were in place to assess and mitigate any risks associated with the environment in which care was provided. However, there was limited information recorded for some identified risks in people’s homes, including measures in place to manage fire risks. We fed this back to the management team who told us additional information would be added to the relevant risk assessment. An on-call system was in place to ensure staff had support from management if environmental risks were identified out of standard working hours.

People and relatives told us they received their care on time from kind and caring staff. A relative told us staff did the job very well, and they felt their relative was cared for safely.

Staff completed training to ensure they carried out their duties safely. Staff told us they felt they had received the training they needed to carry out their role safely. The management team told us as the service grew and developed, they planned to implement an electronic call monitoring system (ECM) to ensure staff were effectively deployed. Currently, manual systems were in place to monitor whether people received a consistent and reliable service.

Processes in place ensured there were enough suitably trained staff on duty. Staff were recruited safely. Processes ensured necessary checks were completed prior to staff starting. This included reference checks, proof of identity checks as well as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. A DBS check is a way for employers to check a potential employee’s criminal record, to help decide whether they are a suitable person to work for them. This protected people from receiving support from unsuitable staff.

People and relatives told us staff wore personal protective equipment to protect them from the possible risk of infection.

Staff were provided with personal protective equipment. The registered manager told us they and the wider management team completed supervisions and spot checks to ensure staff worked in line with infection prevention and control principles.

Processes in place meant people were protected from the spread of transmissible infections. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment to wear whilst providing personal care. An infection prevention control policy was in place to guide staff. Staff had completed infection prevention and control training as part of their induction. The management team attended care calls (spot checks) to ensure staff were working in line with the provider’s policy.

A relative told us they supported their family member with their medicines and staff assisted with applying creams and they completed this support effectively.

The management team told us staff received training to administer medicines safely, and staff we spoke with confirmed this.

There were some processes in place for the safe management of medicines. However, these did not reflect current and relevant best practice. At the time of our assessment only 1 person was receiving support from staff with the application of their topical medicines. The person’s family member was responsible for the administration of all their other medicines. People’s care plan did not detail up to date information about the person’s prescribed medicines, which had the potential to impact their care, and could be significant if there was a change in the person’s level of care. There were some inconsistencies in the guidance made available to staff on how and when to apply this person’s skin cream, and concerns around how staff recorded its application.