Radfield Home Care Havering & Romford

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 were supported by regular staff who were safely recruited and who had the relevant training and qualifications to support them safely. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and ensure no care calls were missed. Staff understood how to protect and safeguard people. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify the risks people faced. These included information about how to mitigate those risks.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. People and their relatives told us they felt safe whilst being supported by staff. One person said, "I feel absolutely safe with them [staff]. They [staff] are nice and I trust them." A relative told us, "Yes, definitely, I feel [person] is safe.” Another relative told us, “Yes, [person] has lifeline button and in event of anything. Feel that [person] is in safe hands of Radfield Home Care Havering and Romford.” People told us staff sought their consent prior to providing any care and support and respected their choices and decisions about this. One relative told us, “There is a level of respect, let [person] make their own choices.”

Staff demonstrated knowledge of the safeguarding processes in place to keep people safe. One staff member told us, "If there is any abuse taking place, I will stop them I will contact the manager. If nothing happens, I will contact the police." Another staff member also said, "If I had a concern I would call an ambulance, called a help line we have if the ambulance was too slow. I will call the office to report it to them as well.” People were further protected from abuse because all staff had received safeguarding training on how to recognise and report abuse appropriately. The staff members we spoke with could explain what action they would take if they suspected or witnessed abuse. Staff were consistent in their understanding of MCA and DoLS and gave examples about how they would support people who might lack capacity to make certain decisions. Examples included seeking consent and making decisions in people’s best interests if they were not able to give informed consent. A staff member said, “When I need to do personal care, I seek their consent and make them comfortable, also give them space and time so they feel comfortable.”

The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. These advised staff on what to do if they had concerns about the welfare of any of the people, they were providing care and support to. The provider also had a whistleblowing policy in place, and this gave guidance to staff on how they could raise concerns about any unsafe practice. A whistle blower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organisation. Incidents or accidents in people’s home were reported to help learn lessons. The provider had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong. The management team reviewed incidents and took action to keep people safe. They undertook an analysis of incidents and accidents each month to identify trends and put in place measures to prevent re-occurrence in future. For example, reviewing specific risks to people and referring them for additional support from external professionals. The provider met the requirements of the MCA. . Decision specific mental capacity assessments had been carried out for people in relation to their capacity to make decisions about their care and whether they were able to give consent. The provider held best interest’s meetings for people, which involved the person, their relatives and appropriate healthcare professionals. This helped ensure the care and support provided by staff was in people's best interest. Staff had received training in the MCA and associated codes of practice and understood their responsibilities under this Act.

People and their relatives were involved in the delivery of care and support being offered. This included the management of potential risks. A relative told us, "I have been included in the care of my family member, all the care plan is in digital so I can see what support they require." Another relative said, “Yes, very much so. Staff will go above and beyond. Know that I pick up my phone and make suggestions and can hold meeting with staff to discuss.”

Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely. For example, people who were at risk due to their physical health or their medical conditions, they had a risk assessment in place. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure they were accurate. This helped to ensure people were receiving safe care and support.

Sufficient risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Staff were aware of potential risks to people and ensured they were safe when carrying out any tasks. One staff said, “I know one person who is pre-diabetic. I read their care plan, so I know the type of food they required, also I update my colleagues on how to support this person.” Another staff member said, “Risk assessments on with the care plan on the app. There is information about a person risks, medication, allergies, likes and dislikes.” Staff also confirmed shadowing shifts before they worked with people helped them to get a better understanding of how to support them safely. The registered manager also had an environmental risk assessment in place which identified potential risks and how to minimise them. This helped to ensure people received care and support within a safe environment.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were complimentary of the staff who cared for them. Staff were punctual and attended their scheduled care calls on time. One person told us, “Yes, they arrive on time. I will give them 10 minutes margin in case of traffic, but rarely it happens.” A relative said, “Yes, definite. If [person] likes a particular staff, I will phone and ask if they will accommodate this. They have been brilliant as will try and keep continuity with same group of carers.” People told us staff understood their needs and had the ability to carry out their job. One person said, “Yes, they are well trained.”

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff rotas had been planned to ensure people were supported by a regular team of staff so that the care and support they received was consistent. The provider had a system in place to minimise risks of late or missed calls. The service used a time sheet to monitor staff attendance and punctuality. These time sheets were also reviewed by the management team. Staff undertook training to support them in their role. Staff told us they had a lot of training, including on mental capacity, safeguarding adults, medicines and moving and handling. Records confirmed this. One staff member said, “Yes, training is good here. Most of the training is now online, it helps me to understand my role better.”

Staff were recruited safely. The required pre-employment checks were completed to help ensure staff employed were suitable. These included conducting an interview, completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and obtaining references. The DBS helps to prevent unsuitable staff from working with vulnerable people. Records showed that staff had received training in a number of key areas relevant to their roles. The service had an induction programme for all new staff. The induction covered a number of areas, which included staff roles and responsibilities and key policies and procedures. Staff would shadow an experienced member of staff until they were confident to work on their own. Staff received regular one to one supervision with the registered manager. They told us that they found those meetings very helpful. This helped the registered manager to continually monitor and review staff performance and attitude towards people using the service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.