K5K Limited t/a Tezlom

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 of this service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 promoted a learning culture. People were supported by staff who recognised and reported concerns. Staff identified changes in people's health and wellbeing, and they acted when needed. Daily records showed managers reviewed care notes and followed up concerns. There had been no accidents, incidents or complaints at the time of our assessment. The provider had systems for investigation and responding to adverse events. Managers used feedback from people and their relatives to identify opportunities for improvement. For example, following feedback about the consistency of care staff, staffing arrangements were reviewed to promote continuity of care. This demonstrated a commitment to learning and improving people's experiences of care.

The provider planned and organised care and support with people, together with partners and relatives in ways that ensured continuity. People received care based on assessments of their needs. Relatives were involved in the assessment process and care planning. The provider shared key information with other healthcare professionals when needed. The management team worked closely with people and their relatives when changes in needs were identified.

The provider worked with people and relevant health and social care professionals to understand and manage risks to people's safety. Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately with relevant agencies when required. People told us they felt safe. Staff completed safeguarding training and understood how to recognise abuse and report concerns. Staff were able to describe safeguarding procedures and escalation processes. Policies and procedures supported staff to keep people safe from harm.

The provider worked in partnership with people and their relatives to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. The managers had completed risk assessments and plans to keep people safe. For example, risks relating to health and wellbeing and falls. People and their relatives were involved in discussions about risks and support needs. People were supported to make informed choices. Relatives told us risks were well managed. Staff completed training to understand how to care for people in a safe way.

The provider assessed environmental risks before care commenced. staff understood about people's home environments and any concern affecting their safety. Managers responded to concerns identified within people's home environments and worked with relatives to reduce risks. For example, where concerns were identified regarding the cleanliness and hygiene of a person's home environment, the provider worked with the person and their relatives to address these concerns and reduce risks to their health and wellbeing.

The provider’s systems for recruiting staff were not always robust. For example, some interview records were dated after staff had completed induction and training. We discussed this with senior managers, who explained initial interviews had been conducted by telephone and staff suitability checks had been completed before employment commenced. They provided assurances that staff had been recruited safely. They agreed to review how information was recorded to better demonstrate how they checked staff were suitable.

The provider had not always demonstrated they provided staff with regular supervision or assessed their competencies. We discussed this with a senior manager. We were assured support was in place, however this was not recorded.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People were supported by a consistent team of staff. Relatives spoke positively about the continuity of care provided. Staff completed induction and mandatory training before supporting people.

Staff completed infection prevention and control training and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). Managers monitored practice through spot checks. Staff understood how to obtain additional PPE when required. Staff told us managers observed their practice, discussed infection control measures and provided feedback where needed.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people and their relatives in planning, including when changes happened. Staff understood medicine procedures and knew how to escalate concerns. Staff had completed training about medicine administration. The provider worked effectively with GPs, pharmacies and relatives when medicine issues were identified. Staff kept accurate records to show when they had supported people with their medicines. Managers checked these to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed.