Tandy Court

People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and compassion.

“A relative told us, "Staff are very friendly, kind and take time to have conversations".” from the report

Staff understood people's health, communication, dietary and mobility needs. Care plans and risk assessments generally recorded these needs clearly.

“People's physical, mental and social needs were assessed and documented in their care plans and risk assessments.” from the report

The home worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff sought consent and supported people to make day-to-day choices.

“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report

Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks had been completed. The home also worked with healthcare professionals when people needed further support.

“Records showed, and our observations confirmed, that there were adequate staff available to support people.” from the report

The medicines trolley was left unlocked, some medicines were late, and records did not always show accurately what had been given. These problems created a risk of missed, duplicate or harmful doses.

“Records were not always accurate meaning there was a risk people could have duplicate or missed medicines.” from the report

Some shared wheelchairs were soiled from previous use and were not cleaned immediately between users. Inspectors were not assured that infection prevention practices were consistently followed.

“We saw wheelchairs were shared between people living at the home and that some wheelchairs were soiled from previous use.” from the report

The home had audits and action plans, but management checks had not identified or corrected the medicines problems. Some lessons from errors were not turned into stronger monitoring.

“However, some identified concerns such as with medication were not effectively addressed.” from the report