Tarrys Residential Home

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

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I feel safe here because all the staff are nice to me. If I fall [staff are] there straight away. Everyone helps me." Staff knew how to safeguard people and felt confident to raise concerns with the registered manager. The registered manager escalated any safeguarding concerns, notifying relevant partner agencies and working with them to keep people safe. Records we reviewed supported that the staff and management followed their safeguarding processes. People and their relatives were involved in managing people’s individual risks. A relative told us, “I’m the first point of contact and the staff keep me informed. There’s no delay either, even if the manager isn’t in.” Staff and the registered manager were knowledgeable about people’s individual risks and told us they involved people, their families, and professionals to monitor and manage risks. We observed staff supporting people in line with their risk assessments and care guidelines. People and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing levels. We reviewed records to assess the safety of staffing levels at night and were not assured that the provider had assured themselves in this area. We fed this back to the registered manager who took action, increased staffing levels and completed assessments to assure themselves there were sufficient staff. Staff training was not up to date when we started our assessment, we fed this back to the registered manager who ensured staff completed their training and confirmed this was now up to date.

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.

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

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.

We spoke to people and their relatives on the day of our visit. They told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel safe here, it’s like home." All the relatives we spoke with commented they felt their loved ones were safe. People and their relatives gave us examples of when staff and the registered manager had helped them, for instance when people had fallen or became unwell staff escalated any concerns appropriately to other professionals. We observed staff supporting people safely.

Staff knew the signs and symptoms of abuse and told us they were confident to raise concerns. Staff knew the procedure to follow in the event of an incident or accident. Staff gave examples of accidents that had recently occurred and the appropriate actions they had taken to ensure people’s safety. The registered manager told us they always ensured people, staff and relatives had the opportunity to escalate any concerns they had.

Staff had completed safeguarding training to support their knowledge about what safeguarding was and how to report safeguarding concerns. The registered manager followed their policies and procedures to escalate safeguarding concerns. They had worked in partnership with relevant agencies to investigate and reduce risks to people living at Tarrys Residential Home.

We observed staff supporting people in line with their risk assessments and care plans. We saw staff supported people with their mobility where this was required, staff spoke with people and explained what they were doing when they supported people with tasks. We observed staff check equipment to ensure it was safe before use and saw they maintained a hazard free environment.

There were risks assessments in place covering various areas of risks people were exposed to. For example we saw assessments for risk of falls, potential risks when staff supported people with moving and handling, risk of skin breakdown, and risks around medicine management. Risk management plans were recorded in people’s care records. The care records provided guidance to staff to support them to reduce individual risks for people.

People and their relatives were involved in managing risks and care. One relative said, "[Loved one] always has [their mobility equipment], and there’s always staff around to help. Staff always let us know straight away if something happens. They’re always in contact."

Staff were knowledgeable about particular risks for people and followed people's risk assessments. Staff were able to describe how they supported individuals to monitor, manage and mitigate their risks. Examples staff shared showed people’s risks were managed individually. Staff took into account people’s wishes, preferences and goals to achieve desired outcomes with them. The registered manager told us they worked with people where possible, their families and professionals to monitor and manage risks. The registered manager gave several examples to support this throughout the assessment.

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

Staff feedback regarding staffing levels was mixed. Staff told us night staffing could be improved to better meet the needs of people. The registered manager told us they felt there were enough staff to safely meet the needs of people. Despite this, the registered manager took action following the feedback and increased night staffing levels. Staff told us they had received the training they needed to effectively carry out their roles.

We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. Most people we spoke with felt there were enough staff to care for them. One person said, “I think there is enough people around to help me.” A relative said, “I’m always let into the home very quickly. [Staff] respond quickly [loved one] so this means they must have enough staff.” However some feedback was less positive. One person said, "There's not enough staff at night time." Some people said they had to wait for staff when they used their call bells but told us it had not negatively impacted them.

During our site visit we observed that there were enough staff around to meet people's care needs in a timely manner. We observed staff taking time to communicate with people and observed kind interactions.

We reviewed records in relation to safe and effective staffing. Staff were recruited safely. Staff records showed checks had been made on employment history, references and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps people make safer recruitment decisions. Not all staff training was up to date, we fed this back to the registered manager who took action to ensure staff training was updated, they sent evidence this had been completed during our assessment. Staff received competency checks to ensure they were able to carry out tasks such as supporting people with moving and handling and medicine administration safely and effectively. Staff supervisions were not always being completed at consistent frequencies. The registered manager told us they were in the process of looking to restructure management and some of these tasks would be delegated creating better oversight in the future. The registered manager used a dependency tool to establish the required staffing levels. The registered manager allocated staffing guided by their dependency tool, however their tool indicated similar levels of care were required day and night however night staffing was allocated at half of the day staffing. Call bells were being audited to ensure they were in working order but response times were not formally being monitored at the time of our assessment. After the feedback we shared with the registered manager they increased the night staffing levels and sent evidence to support this change had been made during our assessment.

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.

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