Executive Carers

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. We found however, people were not always supported by consistent staff, although their needs were met.

People and relatives, we spoke with provided mixed reviews about the consistency of staff and their experiences. For example, 1 person told us, “The carers do what I want, but they do change quite often and that’s not easy really, I have to train them all up again.” One relative also told us, “[Person’s name] doesn’t understand what many of them [Staff] are saying really. I have told them [Staff] how to do things, but the carers change so often it’s a real problem. [Person’s name] doesn’t get to know the carers properly.”

We found however, overall people and their relatives felt safe with staff supporting them, 1 person told us, “They [Staff] are very caring, they say, do not worry, take your time.” Another person told us, “They [Staff] are very kind, they do the job lovely, and we have a good laugh.”

Staff received an induction when first employed which consisted of a range of topics. Further specialist training was provided to meet the needs of people being supported, this included when supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The provider completed regular checks and reviews to support staff and provide guidance throughout their role. These included competency checks, spot checks and aftercare spot checks. Staff reviews detailed any required actions to make improvements to their delivery of care. One staff member told us, “You get spot checks on a regular basis, I feel that is useful, it is good working with double up calls too, you can see how others work and if there is a good idea you can use that.”

We received mixed reviews about call times, with some people confirming they received a call if staff were going to be late, and others stated they had to make contact, as they were not informed if staff were going to be late.

We reviewed the provider’s Electronic Call Monitoring (ECM) data for planned and actual call times. We reviewed the data for 3511 calls during the period of 16 March to 26 March 2025, and found 83% of these calls were delivered on time, with a 15-minute allowance of the planned time. We found 1% of these calls were short calls. A short call is when less than half the planned time is delivered. This meant the provider was meeting the majority of calls within a specified timeframe.

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.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People we spoke with, where staff supported them with their medicines, confirmed they received their medicines as required. One person told us, “They [Staff] give me my tablets and they come in the packs from the chemist, they arrive each week.” One relative told us, “They [Staff] do [Person’s name] medication really well, they watch them take it and [Person’s name] knows what they are having, they have never had a problem with medication.”

Staff knew the processes to follow to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. The provider completed regular competency checks to ensure staff remained skilled and up to date when administering people’s medicines. One staff member told us, “I have been trained to administer medicines, I have spot checks on a regular basis, I feel that is useful.”

People’s medicines were stored within their home and their care records informed staff of their administration requirements. People’s ‘as required’ medicines were listed and recorded within their care records for staff to follow.