Tamami 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 66 (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. No complaints had been raised and no incidents or accidents reported, however, the provider had policies and procedures in place for people, their families, and representatives to raise concerns. There was no evidence of any service user feedback, this was discussed with the manager during assessment, and they acknowledged that this needed to be part of the learning culture of the service, however as there were only 5 people using the service the manager knew all of them well and had regular discussions with them regarding their care. Staff were clear about how to report concerns and had access to the policies.

The provider did not always work well with people to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. Peoples risk assessments were not always clear and advice from external agencies were not always sought. For example, we seen a care plan where skin integrity was mentioned and other healthcare professionals were involved, there was a risk assessment in place but there was no advice or documentation from the relevant healthcare professional included. Staff were supporting people, but more work was needed around the wording within the risk assessments. This was discussed with the manager during assessment and was rectified immediately.

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 had an up to date, clear safeguarding policy which contained relevant information on all types of abuse to guide staff. Staff knew how to raise concerns and completed safeguarding training.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Systems were in place to identify and record risks relating to people’s safety and wellbeing; however, we found some issues with the consistency of these records. Staff were asked how they would manage risk to people and they were able to explain how they would support people properly. The provider acknowledged these findings and advised us that they were reviewing their documentation to ensure risk and control measures were recorded clearly and consistently.

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 provider had a lone working policy in place which stated that an assessment of people’s homes should be considered, we saw the evidence that these assessments took place in peoples care plans.Staff understood their responsibility to support people to maintain a safe environment, and people told us that they were guided on the correct, safe way to use equipment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision, and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We saw evidence of up-to-date training for staff and the manager told us they were completing the required training to become a trainer themselves.We looked at staff files one member of staff had only had one previous employer so there was only one reference, the recruitment policy in place states that two references must be obtained.We discussed this with the manager, and this employee was able to obtain a character reference from a professional, the manager told us this was to be obtained immediately.

Everyone had a DBS in place at the time of our assessment, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer and help employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.There was an infection control policy in place. Staff had also received training regarding infection control. This meant staff knew how to manage infection risk and reduce the spread of infectious diseases.

People who used the service and staff told us that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available, used and disposed of appropriately.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.

The provider had a medication managements policy in place. Some medications were listed in care plans, however when discussing this with the manager they advised that people took their own medications and the only support needed was for moisturising cream. There were no clear instructions regarding the application of the moisturiser or what it was for, this meant that staff did not have all the details required for correct application. People told us they were confident in the care that they were receiving, and, in some cases, medical reviews had reduced due to the level of care received.