You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 April 2016

The Tamarind provides care and support for up to five people who have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum. There were four people living in the service when we inspected on 17 February 2016.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care that was personalised to them and met their needs and wishes. Staff listened to people and acted on what they said. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.

Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes guided staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how risks to people were minimised.

Recruitment checks on staff were carried out with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. People were treated with kindness by the staff. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring and compassionate manner.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other health care professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

Care and support was based on the assessed needs of each person. People’s care records contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions. People were encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests and to maintain links within the community.

People or their representatives were supported to make decisions about how they led their lives and wanted to be supported. Where they lacked capacity, appropriate actions had been taken to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests. The service was up to date regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible but where additional support was needed this was provided in a caring, respectful manner.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. Staff were aware of the values of the service and understood their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance surveys were used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement in the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 1 April 2016

The service was safe.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise abuse or potential abuse and how to respond and report these concerns appropriately.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.



Updated 1 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s individual needs. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was understood by staff and appropriately implemented.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to ongoing health care support.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to maintain a balanced diet.



Updated 1 April 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people. People’s independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.

Staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their families were appropriately involved.



Updated 1 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People were provided with personalised care to meet their assessed needs and preferences.

People’s concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.



Updated 1 April 2016

The service was well-led.

People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had a quality assurance system with identified shortfalls addressed promptly this helped the service to continually improve.

There was an open and transparent culture at the service. Staff were encouraged and supported by the management team and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.