Charity Earnshaw Also known as Charity Earnshaw

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 were protected from the risk of harm and abuse through safeguarding policies and processes. People were supported to understand and manage risk. Care plans were clear and staff told us they provided sufficient guidance to support people. There were sufficient and appropriately trained staff in place to support people. Staff were recruited safely

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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them and were confident to raise any concerns they might have. One comment received by our assessment team was, “Yes, they are very good. I’m fine.”

There were current policies and processes to reduce the risk of people being exposed to harm or abuse.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and were aware of internal and external reporting processes. Service leaders notified the relevant authorities where required.

Staff were aware of and knew where to find information about people's risks. Staff told us that changes were communicated to them through a number of different channels, for example internal messages and staff meetings.

People told us they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. One comment we received was, “Yes, I tend to manage it with carers.”

Care plans contained assessments to identify, mitigate and manage risks to reduce the risk of harm. For example, risks around mobility equipment, the environment, personal care and moving and handling were recorded.

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 felt well supported by the service leadership and felt confident to raise any concerns. They felt they had sufficient travel time to appointments and were able to meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they received support through supervision. The provider told us recruitment had been challenging but had been significantly improved by securing a Home Office Sponsorship Licence.

People told us they were supported by a friendly staff team who knew them well, however some felt communication could be improved which we fed back to the provider. People said staff attended on time and stayed the correct amount of time. Most people we spoke with told us they felt the staff had the skills to support them safely.

The provider completed appropriate police and criminal records checks, right to work checks were in place, references were obtained. Staff received training to carry out their roles and we reviewed supporting training records. There were effective systems and process to deploy staff.

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.