The Tides

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of reporting accidents and incidents and felt confident to raise about any concerns without hesitation. The service had clear processes in place for recording, reviewing and learning from incidents, with appropriate action taken to reduce risks and improve outcomes for people.

Staff described the workplace as positive and supportive, where regular training, supervision and reflection were encouraged. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team and were confident that their views and suggestions were listened to and considered to improve care. Relatives were kept informed of any significant changes and updated relating to their family members. The management team demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of people’s needs and maintained effective oversight of the care provided, helping to ensure people received safe, consistent and appropriate care.

The service 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.

Relatives and staff told us decisions about people’s care were clearly explained and communicated, helping them to understand the support being provided. Referrals to relevant health and social care professionals were made promptly when required, ensuring people received appropriate support without unnecessary delay. The management team had established effective working relationships with external professionals and worked collaboratively to meet people’s changing needs.

Regular team meetings provided staff with opportunities to openly discuss people’s care, wellbeing and safety, as well as raise any concerns or share information. This supported effective communication across the team and helped ensure staff remained informed about people’s individual needs and any changes in their care.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us they felt happy, safe and cared for at the service. Relatives also expressed confidence in the service and told us they trusted staff to keep their family members safe. One relative said, “I feel my loved one is safe living at the Tides. There are always staff around and there are safeguards in place.’’ And another relative said, “I do rely on the staff to make my loved one safe and they do that’’

During the inspection, we observed staff providing care in a safe and respectful manner. Safeguarding procedures were established and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how to report any concerns. Staff told us they felt confident that the management team would respond to concerns promptly and appropriately.

The management team had comprehensive knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. The service followed the principles of MCA and all DoLS applications were managed in line with regulatory requirements. The management team-maintained oversight of authorisations, while staff received relevant safeguarding and MCA training to support them in protecting people from avoidable harm.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had care plans and risk assessments in place to guide staff in supporting their safety, independence and choices. People were supported to take positive risks, including accessing the community and participating in activities they enjoyed. Staff supported people who experienced anxiety or distress with patience and reassurance, enabling them to remain involved in meaningful activities. During the inspection, people returned home from an outing looking happy and relaxed.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Relatives spoke positively about the service, describing it as homely, clean and well maintained. The environment was comfortable and suitable for people’s needs with communal areas providing a welcoming space. Staff were warm and supportive, creating a calm and relaxed atmosphere.

The management team maintained effective systems to identify and manage environmental risks. Maintenance staff were trained in areas such as fire safety and health and safety, and external contractors caried out regular checks, including gas and fire safety. Fire drills, including night-time evacuation, were carried out regularly, and people had up-to-date personal emergency evacuation plans in place.

The service 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.

The service completed all required recruitment checks before staff started work. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. There were enough staff to support people safely. Relatives were happy with the care and communication. One relative said, “Staff are good with details, good at communicating. We get loads of communication from them. They are professional, helpful and thoughtful.” Another said, “I feel the staff members are trained and are aware of my loved one's health conditions.’’

Staff received training relevant to people’s needs, including learning disabilities, awareness of swallowing difficulties, catheter care, epilepsy and positive behavioural support. Staff received induction and regular supervision and appraisal to support them in providing safe and effective care.

A staff member said, “The training provided is good. If there’s anything I’m not confident with or need more support on, the team is always happy to help, show me, or arrange extra training if needed.’’

The service 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 (IPC) training and had access to suitable personal protective equipment (PPE). The service was clean, tidy, and well-maintained. Good IPC practices were followed daily, with regular audits to help maintain safety and compliance.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines as prescribed, and staff followed safe medicines procedures. Clear guidance was in place for ‘as required’ medicines, and people’s needs and preferences were considered.

Medicines were safely ordered, stored, administered and disposed of, with accurate stock levels maintained. Staff received medicines training and regular competency checks. Management team carried out audits to identify and address any issues, helping to ensure medicines were managed safely.