Teasdale 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. 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 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 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.

Although the provider had not always notified CQC of safety incidents having taken place, this was identified to have been due to an administrative error. The registered manager resolved this swiftly and sent notifications retrospectively. We saw evidence of safeguarding incidents being logged and reported as well as safeguarding referrals being made when necessary.

Staff told us they could identify and escalate safety concerns, which was evident from documentation viewed and referrals having been made to the local authority safeguarding teams.

People told us they felt safe and able to raise concerns if need be. A relative told us, “Carers would contact me if they had any concerns about [person’s] safety.”

The provider 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.

Although we found some minor inconsistencies across people’s documentation, no one had come to harm as a result. Care documentation was personalised and detailed. Staff told us they were able to access people’s care documentation, and they had the information needed to be able to support people.

One person told us, “They have protocols in place, the carers have had the right training, the office do spot checks to make sure.” A relative told us, “The carers found [person] on the floor. They [Staff] called for an ambulance; they informed the office and called me. The know what they are doing.”

Staff told us they could share concerns with the office as well as contacting relevant health professionals when needed.

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 shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff, people and relatives felt able to raise safety concerns. One person told us, “You can trust them [staff] when they come into your home, they give me good care, they look after me.” A member of staff told us, “I report [safeguarding concerns] to the office. I report and then the office deals with everything.”

We saw safety incidents were recorded and acted on. The provider listened to people, relatives and staff to keep people safe. We saw safeguarding referrals had been sent to the local authority when required.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Leaders ensured people with learning disabilities and autistic people were supported in line with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture by ensuring staff received relevant training and ensured people received person-centred, safe, and respectful care.

Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture is CQC guidance that we expect providers to follow when they support people with a learning disability or autistic people.

Risk assessments were completed to identify how to reduce identified risks to people. The provider took a positive approach to risk; enabling people to take their own risks in line with their own preferences and where they had mental capacity to do so.

One person told us, “They [Staff] are always polite and helpful, they encourage my independence, I would recommend them to anyone, they are one of the best companies.”

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 completed environmental risk assessments within people’s homes to identify areas of risk and took measures to reduce these risks. Staff could access this information to support them in case of an emergency arising in people’s own homes.

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. This was demonstrated through their learning culture which included face to face and online training.

People told us staff were generally consistent, on time and well trained. One person told us, “I have the same 2 carers, they always come together.” A relative told us, “Staff always arrive together, if they arrive in separate cars they will wait in the street for each other.”

The provider completed pre-employment checks. References and criminal records checks had been obtained before staff employment. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Where it was identified staff had health conditions, the provider ensured reasonable adjustments were made. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.

The provider told us staff received their induction, appropriate training as well as competency checks and supervision regularly.

Staff confirmed this was happening and one staff member told us, “Someone comes out without informing us to check.” Staff told us this was followed by supervision which they felt supported them in their role.

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.

The provider trained staff around infection prevention and control and provided Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to staff.

People and staff confirmed PPE was worn appropriately. A staff member told us, “We change PPE after every task and dispose of it correctly so there is no infection. PPE is always available from the office."

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

While medicines were administered safely, we noted that some medicines administration records (MAR), particularly for ‘when required’ (PRN) medicines lacked the level of detail seen in others. For example, we found a lack of signs and symptoms for health conditions, which would guide staff in knowing when to offer a particular PRN medicine and reduce the risk of people not receiving medicine when they needed it. Although no concerns were identified in relation to medicines administration and we found no harm had come to people during our inspection, as staff knew people and their needs well.

A relative told us, “I am confident in the way they manage [person’s] medication. If there are any changes the carers always contact the office.” A relative explained, “If [person] needs new medication from the GP, they [staff] sort it out.”

The provider regularly checked people’s competencies around medicines administration. Staff confirmed this was happening and felt confident in administering people’s medicines.