# Reagle Home Care Services (RHC) *Operated by Eagle and Jinnah Partnership.* Reagle Home Care Services (RHC) is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Northwood. ## CQC Ratings | Key question | Rating | | --- | --- | | Overall | Good | | Safe | Good | | Effective | Good | | Caring | Good | | Responsive | Good | | Well-led | Good | Rating published: 21/12/2023 ## Practical info - Postcode: HA6 3EZ - Registered manager: Uzoho, Edith - Local authority: Hertfordshire - Region: East - City: Northwood - Last CQC check: 21/Dec/2023 - 00:00 ## Inspection findings ### Other - Finding - Evidence: Open, honest and transparent culture with clear strategic vision from registered manager and directors - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Partnership working with commissioners, GPs, district nurses, opticians and other professionals - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Overwhelmingly positive feedback from people and families; described care as 'impeccable and exemplary' - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Strong quality assurance systems including spot checks, surveys, and digital care plan migration - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Accidents and incidents reviewed to identify trends and share learning with staff - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Effective infection prevention and control measures including PPE provision and updated COVID-19 action plan - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Medicines administration training and regular competency checks ensured safe medication support - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Staff completed safeguarding training and demonstrated awareness of abuse types and appropriate reporting procedures - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: Robust recruitment processes including DBS checks and professional references, with new care packages only accepted when sufficient staffing capacity exists - Published: 2023-12-21 - Finding - Evidence: People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People and their relatives were happy with how they were supported with medicines. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Regular staff meetings and individual supervision were in place, and staff felt supported by the manager. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Staff received training in safeguarding and were able to explain how to identify and report concerns. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People's consent was sought prior to care being delivered and staff were clear about obtaining consent. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Staff were caring, kind and respected people's dignity and privacy. - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People told us they felt safe with the care they received and were positive about the management and ethos of the service. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **communication_with_families** _(minor)_ - Evidence: One relative said they felt they needed to check when there was a change in medicines as care staff did not always hand over information about medicines. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **person_centred_care** _(minor)_ - Evidence: Another care plan read that the person was able to prepare and cook their own food which was not the case as food was prepared for them. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **staff_competency** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: A number of staff had not received the [DBS] clearance until a couple of months after they began working. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **safeguarding** _(critical)_ - Evidence: We saw there was no risk assessment or plan to mitigate any risk in place which is required when a person's DBS had disclosures. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **supervision_appraisal** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: There was no formal supervision in place for live in carers who, although self-employed, were managed by the agency as were the care packages they were employed for. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **care_planning** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Care plans did not always give staff clear guidance on how to deliver care or support… where people had some form of dementia there was no information to guide staff - Published: 2020-01-29 - **staff_training** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: There was no system to record and monitor staff training which meant some staff training was out of date or had not taken place. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **record_keeping** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: There was no system to maintain an audit trail of all key staff recruitment documents which ensured that people had been recruited robustly and were fit to work in the care sector. - Published: 2020-01-29 - **governance** _(critical)_ - Evidence: There were not adequate systems to monitor and improve the quality of the services provided. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014 - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Complaints and late visits recorded and monitored with lessons learnt - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Positive, open and inclusive culture with monthly staff meetings and employee of the month award - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Quality assurance officer employed since last inspection; unannounced spot checks and medicine audits in place - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: Continuity of care improved with named staff and backup arrangements communicated to people - Published: 2020-01-29 - Finding - Evidence: People were treated with dignity and respect and involved in planning and reviewing their care - Published: 2020-01-29 ## Source Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-1683700719 HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.