Tehy Care Group 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

Staff recruitment required improvement. Staff were given information about risk to keep people safe. However, some risk management information required further review to ensure all information was reflective of people’s current needs. We received mixed feedback in relation to staffing and people receiving their calls at the time requested. Safeguarding processes were in place and staff had a clear understanding of safeguarding people from abuse. Medicines were managed safely.

This service scored 56 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us the management team encouraged them to speak up and learning was shared in team meetings or supervision. A staff member told us, “They do listen to me, they will hear what we say.”

During this assessment we identified concerns relating to recruitment records and care records. These issues have been identified in previous inspections, so we were not assured the provider was learning from their previous regulatory history. As this was a small service there were very few accidents, incidents or complaints. We were told by the provider there were no records of missed calls and only 2 recent late calls. However, this was not the experience of people using the service as 1 relative told us they had missed calls in the past and staff were not arriving at the time their family member had chosen.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Relatives told us their family members were safe with the staff who supported them. A relative told us, “[Family member] always says they feel safer with me. I am happy in myself as I have got to know the staff, I know their personalities, they are very presentable and trustworthy. [Family member] does feel vulnerable. I certainly have no concerns.”

Staff were aware of safeguarding policies and procedures and knew who to contact both internally and externally if they had a concern. A staff member told us, “I would inform the line manager, they will take it from there. If I was still concerned, I would go to the local authority. The manager encourages to speak up if things are not right.” Another staff member said, “Safeguarding is about protecting individual’s rights and making sure they are free from abuse. I would inform the line manager so appropriate action could be taken and then I would report to the safeguarding team.”

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had access to policies and procedures if they needed them. The service had not had any safeguarding events; however, the management team were aware of what to report if this was required.

We received mixed feedback about people and relatives being involved in the care plan and associated risks. A relative told us, “I think they understand [family member] and they stick to the brief which we set up with them in the Autumn.” Another relative told us they had not received any reviews of their care and they were not happy with the timings of their calls.

Staff told us they knew people well and were fully informed of the risks associated with people’s care. A staff member told us, “We go to clients first with the manager and they tell us about the risk. I was shown and trained in using mobility equipment.”

Risk assessments were in place; however, work was needed to ensure risk plans were current. For example, 1 person’s care plan detailed the person was fully independent of their care, but staff were recording the person was supported with their care daily. In other care plans, not all sections of the care plan had been updated to reflect any updates or changes to people’s care and support.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We received mixed feedback relating to the punctuality and consistency of the service. A relative told us, “We had regular carers but now we never know who is going to turn up. It is supposed to be a set time but usually isn’t.” Another relative said, “As a rule, timekeeping and attendance good. I generally get a call if they are going to be late. For a while it has been good.” Whilst we were told things had improved recently people and relatives told us they had experienced missed visits in the past due staffing issues. Relatives were positive about the skills of staff supporting their family members. A relative said, “I do think they are well trained.”

Staff felt the provider employed enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively. A staff member told us, “There is enough staff, care is always delivered. When staff are unavailable another carer is called, we always provide the care.” Staff were positive about the training and support they received from the provider. A staff member told us, “I was trained immediately when I arrived. I did online training and physical training.” Whilst staff told us there was enough staff to meet people’s needs, feedback from people differed to records which meant we were not assured all late or missed calls were being recorded.

Recruiting processes required improvement, references viewed did not always match information found on staff application forms or CV’s. We found references were dated for some staff after their start date. We were not assured the registered manager was verifying or obtaining references appropriately. Systems were in place to ensure there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The provider told us there had been no missed visits but relatives we spoke with told us there had been occasions where staff had not turned up for a visit, although they did add this was not recent. This did not assure us the information we were provided with was accurate in relation to missed or late visits. It was also noted the information recorded in relation to late visits did not record the details of who had received a late call. This did not assure us the overview contained enough information for identifying trends or themes in relation to late visits. Staff had completed relevant training to their roles, including first aid, mental capacity act, moving and handling, dementia and infection control. Training was refreshed at regular intervals so that staff stayed up to date with current practice. The service had a well-equipped training space so face to face training could be delivered to staff. We saw staff supervision records which showed discussions had taken place with regards to staff development needs and updated staff on any changes.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Relatives we spoke with did not express any concerns about medicines administration.

Staff told us the training they received gave them the knowledge and skills to administer medicines safely. A staff member told us, “We were shown how to administer medicines, how to find out about the person and how to record. They spot check monthly and watch us doing the medicines.”

There were systems in place to ensure staff were trained to administer medicines safely. There were records to confirm staff had been assessed as competent to administer medicines. Audits had been completed, when there had been shortfalls, action had been taken to reduce the risk of them happening again.