Tender365 Care (UK) Limited

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. People said that they felt safe, they were positive about the care they received. Staff knew how to escalate safety concerns. The provider ensured that staff had safeguarding training and stated that they would investigate a safeguarding if it occurred. Processes were in place for pre-assessment of people’s care and support needs before they started receiving care. However, these lacked detail and contained contradictory information .

This service scored 41 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People said that they felt safe. One person told us, “The same person comes, they know you and you know them.” They said that the care staff knew exactly how to use the equipment used to support them and said, “You know that they have been trained and know exactly what to do.” The person told us if they had any incidents or accidents, they would tell the care staff or contact the manager, but there had not been any. They said that they have been asked for their feedback about their care and had provided it.

Staff explained that they had received training for their roles. They said they could contact the office if the needed help or to report something but said that no incidents or accidents had occurred.

The Nominated Individual said that they had an ‘open door policy’ and they encourage their staff to feed back. They told us they had not had any incidents or accidents reported. However, they said if one occurred it would be recorded on the person’s care records and a copy of an incident/near miss form would be completed. This would record the actions taken and would be reviewed by a manager. The provider had a ‘Spot check’ policy in place, saying that they would make regular unannounced spot checks to demonstrate their commitment to high standards of care, this involves a supervisor attending a care call.

The person told us that they feel safe with the care staff and said that they had consistent staff, “She makes me feel good about myself, I used to suffer with anxiety with care staff but don’t now."

Staff had received safeguarding training, and the provider had a safeguarding policy that noted processes and practices to follow that would make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. Staff we spoke to told us they were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe. Staff demonstrated knowledge of how to escalate concerns, if necessary, in relation to safeguarding.

The Nominated Individual told us that no safeguarding incidents had occurred. There was a safeguarding policy in place and safeguarding training had been completed by staff.

The person told us that they felt safe, that risks were managed well and their relative agreed. They said that the care staff knew exactly how to meet their needs and use the equipment. The care staff encouraged them to be independent with the tasks and they could speak to the care staff if they needed medical help quickly.

Staff understood the importance of a safe environment and told us that they made sure any equipment they used was clean and working properly. They said that if the person was anxious, they tried to relax her to calm her down. One staff member told us that before they supported the person to move, “I check it is OK, I clean and check it, I was using it one time I told [person] equipment was not in good condition and they got a new one.” Staff were aware that they needed to make sure that environment was hazard free and equipment was up to date with its servicing. The Nominated Individual told us that they reviewed people’s risks. However, records we reviewed did not support good practice.

The person used equipment to support them to move however there was no information recorded about where these were stored. Other information on risks relating to them and their care were not recorded in the person’s risks assessment or care plan. Environmental risks had not been adequately assessed. Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail and contained contradictory information. For example, information about mobility and skin integrity was inconsistent.

The person said that there are enough consistent staff, and the same care staff attend all the time. They said the care staff arrived on time and none of their care calls had been missed.

The Nominated Individual told us about how the recruitment and selection process was completed and recorded. They told us they followed employment law to ensure checks were completed. However, we reminded them there were specific regulations to follow for care providers to ensure people were supported by suitable staff. The Nominated Individual said that contingency plans were in place to cover periods of unexpected sickness, they would have sufficient staff to do this, or had contacts with care agencies who could supply additional staff.

The provider needed to review and update their recruitment practice to make sure that all staff were suitable to carry out their roles. Staff files did not always contain required information to demonstrate safety checks had been completed before working with people. 4 staff files were missing information such as full employment history and had unexplained gaps in employment, lacked evidence from previous employment regarding staff's conduct and verifying the reasons for leaving. Following the site visit further recruitment information was shared, but this was not consistent with evidence gathered on site. Effective processes were not in place to ensure staff were recruited safely. Staff had completed the online Care Certificate, which is made up of the 15 minimum standards that should be covered if you are 'new to care' and should form part of a robust induction programme. However, staff had not had any follow up practical assessments. The Nominated Individual told us that they would arrange the assessments. Staff said they had not had supervision meetings, but supervision meeting notes were provided meaning we received contradictory information, from the provider and staff.

The person and their relative said that the care staff had good hygiene. The person being cared for said, “They all have gloves and aprons and wash their hands before they touch me."

Staff said that they received infection prevention and control training, and that personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally available when needed. They said they made sure equipment was clean before using it. Staff understood how to use PPE effectively and reduce the risk of and spread of infection.

Policies, procedures, and contingency plans were all in place for the safe managements of infection control. Staff all received infection prevention and control training.