BITAK Healthcare 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

Safe – this 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 69 (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 demonstrated a proactive and positive safety culture, underpinned by openness and honesty. Staff actively listened to safety concerns, investigated incidents thoroughly, and reported events appropriately, with learning used to drive improvement.

Systems were in place to record and monitor concerns, and learning was regularly shared during team meetings to support good practice. The manager told us they promoted an open-door approach, encouraging staff to speak openly and staff confirmed this when we spoke to them. One staff member described the manager as approachable and supportive, comments included “[registered manager] is approachable and supportive” Staff felt able to seek advice, raise concerns, and access support when needed, contributing to an open and positive culture wherepeople’s care could be delivered safely and effectively. People we spoke to did not raise any concerns.

The provider worked collaboratively with individuals and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Safety was actively managed and monitored, and continuity of care was maintained, including during transitions between services.

Wherever possible, people were supported to review their own care plans and contribute to the development of care planning documentation. Where people were unable to do this independently, family members or representatives of their choosing were involved in the process.

Care plans contained personalised information about people's needs, preferences, wishes, and goals. This enabled staff and healthcare professionals to develop a thorough understanding of each person's individual circumstances, helping to ensure continuity, consistency, and person-centred delivery of care and support.

This meant people and those important to them were involved in planning their care, and staff had access to the information needed to provide safe and consistent support.

The provider worked closely with people and healthcare partners to understand what safety meant to them and how best to achieve it. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while ensuring they were kept safe and protected from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect.

Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately to support effective safeguarding, and effective systems were in place to ensure oversight and timely escalation.

The manager told us that safeguarding was regularly discussed during team meetings and supervisions and reinforced through knowledge quizzes to ensure staff understanding remained up to date. Staff told us they received appropriate training, and those we spoke with demonstrated a strong understanding of how to recognise signs of abuse.

Feedback from people and their relatives indicated that people felt safe with the support they received and were confident that staff would respond appropriately if concerns arose. A relative told us “If I had any concerns then I would speak to the manager, they are always very responsive when I have needed to speak to them. This meant people were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to act on concerns.

The provider worked collaboratively with people to understand and manage risks using a holistic approach, enabling staff to deliver care that was both safe and supportive while promoting independence.

Positive outcomes were demonstrated in practice. For example, the manager described how one person was supported through joint planning and goal setting to develop their independence, resulting in a reduced level of support while maintaining ongoing monitoring of their safety and wellbeing.

Staff also described how they had supported one person experiencing declining health and wellbeing. Through person-centred planning, healthcare involvement, and agreed goals, the person's health improved significantly, leading to greater independence and improved quality of life.

People told us staff understood their health needs and supported them appropriately while enabling them to manage aspects of their own care independently.

The impact of this consistent approach of involving people in managing risks was that people felt more involved and more empowered to undertake tasks independently.

The provider ensured equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly, with appropriate action taken to mitigate identified risks. For example, where a person was assessed as being at increased risk due to a combination of factors, including limited mobility, smoking, and the use of emollient creams, the provider had implemented clear guidance for staff and sought advice from the local Fire and Rescue Service. This demonstrated a proactive and coordinated approach to managing risks while supporting the person's independence.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of environmental risks and their role in managing them. One staff member described how they considered potential risks when attending people's homes, including checking that smoke alarms were functioning and identifying hazards such as clutter or obstructions. Relevant environmental risks and control measures were clearly recorded within risk assessments and care records to guide staff practice.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about the safety of the environments in which care was provided. This demonstrated a consistent and practical approach to identifying, assessing, and reducing environmental risks in people’s own homes.

The provider did not always ensure staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience required to support people safely.We identified some gaps in recruitment records. For example, employment histories did not always include full dates, with some only recorded by year, and these gaps had not been concisely documented. This was discussed with the provider at the time of the inspection. The provider took prompt action to strengthen their recruitment processes, including introducing an “Employment History Verification Form” to ensure any gaps were identified and appropriately reviewed, with additional measures implemented where required.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and had access to ongoing training. Staff told us they completed a range of training, includingthe mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism. This helped to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills required to understand and meet people's individual needs and provide person-centred support.

This meant staff had access to appropriate training to support them in their roles.

The provider assessed and managed the risks associated with infection prevention and control (IPC). They took appropriate steps to reduce the risk of infection spreading and shared any concerns promptly with relevant agencies.

We saw that staff had received IPC training, and managers told us that all staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff compliance was monitored through spot checks to help ensure safe practice.

Staff told us they followed good infection control practices, such as washing their hands before and after each task, wearing aprons and gloves, and disposing of waste correctly in designated bags and bins.

The provider did not always ensure that medicines and treatments were managed safely or fully met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. People were not always consistently involved in managing their medicines.

We found that some important medicines information was not always recorded, such as specific storage requirements, the reasons for prescribed medicines, and people’s preferences for how their medicines were administered.

However, the provider had clear documentation in place to guide staff in managing risks associated with specialist medicines, including blood-thinning medication. For example, information about associated risks, potential side effects, allergies, and required monitoring was clearly recorded and accessible to staff.

The Registered Manager demonstrated a good understanding of STOMP (Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability and autistic people) principles and their importance in ensuring medicines are used appropriately. They were able to explain how the service worked with healthcare professionals to reduce the inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines and ensure people received the least restrictive treatment necessary to meet their needs.

Staff told us they had received medication training and described safe practices, including administering the right medicine, at the right dose, at the right time. A relative told us, “Carers know about [relative's] medication and if there were any queries, they would get in contact with me.”

This meant that while some shortfalls were identified in documentation, staff demonstrated an understanding of safe medication practices, and leaders understood the importance of promoting the safe and appropriate use of medicines.