Tipson Healthcare Limited

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 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.
Leaders identified and acted on learning from incidents. For example, when staff had difficulties recording electronic daily care notes, the provider introduced a contingency process for staff to manually record the care delivered. This helped ensure records remained clear, accurate and contemporaneous.
When leaders identified poor practice during a spot check, they addressed it with the staff member involved and learning was shared with the wider care team.
The provider shared learning through a communication application and monthly team meetings, and where necessary leaders called impromptu meetings to address anything of an urgent nature.
 

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.
The provider maintained effective working relationships with healthcare professionals and kept communication open when people’s care needs changed or when they moved between services. Leaders reviewed referrals carefully to decide whether the service could safely meet people’s needs and to identify whether further information was needed before care started.
The registered manager met people face to face before agreeing support, so they could understand the person’s needs and help them feel reassured about the staff who would provide their care. The provider promoted continuity of care by sharing relevant information with other services and professionals and by making sure identified risks were considered and managed.
The provider’s policies and procedures supported joint working with external partners. This helped maintain consistent care, supported safe transitions and enabled learning to be shared across services.
 

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.
The provider had safeguarding systems, policies and records in place. People, relatives and staff had access to safeguarding information and staff completed safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act and equality training. Staff understood how to recognise abuse and escalate concerns.
The person told us they felt safe. The relative also felt confident staff would recognise if the person was distressed, at risk or being harmed. Staff understood people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Equality Act 2010 and understood how they were applied in practice. The provider had processes for safeguarding notifications, oversight, duty of candour and learning from concerns.
 

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.
Risk assessments and care plans gave staff guidance about how to support the person safely and consistently. These included risks linked to the person’s physical health, equipment, diet, clinical needs and environment. The person and relative were involved in discussing risks, and staff respected the person’s choices and preferences.
Daily records of care showed staff supported the person in line with agreed risk management plans. Staff monitored the person’s presentation and knew how to escalate concerns.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
The service provided care in the person’s own home. Staff monitored the layout of the home to identify hazards and reduce risks. Staff checked equipment used by the person and had a process in place to escalate concerns to the person’s spouse and the local authority equipment provider when checks or repairs were needed. Beds were checked as part of standard safety monitoring.
Staff understood their responsibilities for monitoring safety in the person’s home. The person and relative both told us the person felt safe in their environment.
 

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met the person’s individual needs.
The provider had recruitment processes to check staff were suitable for their roles. Staff completed induction, mandatory training and role-specific training. The provider also accessed external training provided by their Local Authority so staff could develop skills for future packages or changes in need, including Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, first aid, medicines administration, food hygiene and moving and handling.
Staff received monthly supervision, and leaders arranged additional supervision when concerns arose. For example, following an identified issue with staff practice that did not meet guidance, the registered manager provided early supervision and used the learning to improve practice. The relative told us, “staff seem better prepared after I had raised concerns with the registered manager at the beginning of my relatives care”.
 

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.
Staff completed infection prevention and control training, including safe use of PPE. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of infection during personal care and food preparation. The relative told us, “staff wash and sanitise their hands, they wear PPE when needed and handle food hygienically.”
The provider Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policies covered infection control, outbreaks and personal hygiene. Care plans and risk assessments considered infection risks and the support the person needed with personal hygiene. Where staff supported food preparation or handling, records included relevant food hygiene checks, including checks that hot and cold food was kept at safe temperatures.
 

The provider made sure arrangements relating to medicines were clear and safe within the scope of the regulated activity being delivered.
The provider was not commissioned to administer or prompt prescribed medicines for the person using the service. The person’s medicines were administered by a specially trained live-in carer who was independent of the service. The person’s initial needs assessment and care plan clearly recorded this arrangement.
However, staff supported the person with their multivitamin regime as part of their agreed daily routine. Staff also received medicines administration training during induction so they could understand medicines-related risks and remain prepared for any future packages or changes in circumstances. Leaders had an escalation process for staff to report any medicines-related concerns to the person’s GP, pharmacy and family where needed.