Eveready 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the safe management of medicines.

This service scored 47 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

At the time of the inspection there had been no accidents or incidents. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of what to do if one occurred. One staff told us, “In the event of an accident or incident, it would depend on what it was. I might have to call the emergency services and then report this to everyone.” Another said, “I haven’t had any accidents or incidents, but I would call the emergency services if I needed to.”

The provider had an accident and incident policy in place. The registered manager understood their role in investigating and reporting issues. Relatives told us they were happy with the service and felt confident that staff would act quickly if something went wrong. Staff said they were encouraged to learn from any issues and were confident about how to report concerns or changes in people’s wellbeing. Safeguarding was discussed regularly, and staff knew to contact the manager or social workers about concerns, or the GP if the issue was health related.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Relatives told us they felt their family member was safe with staff.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff told us, “Currently and in the past, I haven’t had any concerns about people being abused,” and another said, “I feel my client is safe. I would talk to my manager if I had any concerns.”

People were provided with safeguarding information, including out-of-hours contact numbers, the office phone number, and the local authority safeguarding lead details, which were kept in their care folders.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to describe the actions they would take if they witnessed or suspected abuse.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments and support plans were detailed and person-centred. Staff confirmed they had read people’s care plans and risk assessments and understood how to apply them in practice. Families were involved in developing and reviewing these documents to ensure care reflected people’s needs and preferences.

The provider supported people to return home safely following changes in their health needs and ensured risk assessments were in place to reduce the likelihood of future harm. Where people were at risk of falls, detailed assessments and clear guidance were developed for staff. These plans were effective in preventing further incidents over a sustained period.

Staff also supported people to remain active by incorporating gentle mobility exercises, such as short walks, into their daily routines. Environmental risk assessments were used to ensure these activities were carried out safely and in a way that promoted independence.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found that safeguarding training for some staff had expired in July 2025. The provider was unable to evidence that refresher training had been booked or that they were aware of the expiry dates. The provider’s processes for monitoring staff training did not identify this issue. People received their care and support from staff who were not consistently supervised. The provider’s policy stated that supervisions should take place monthly. However, we only saw records of 3 supervisions for this year – in May, August and September. The provider told us some sessions may have overlapped and that some records had been handwritten and not typed, but we were not shown evidence to confirm this. The provider acknowledged that their compliance monitoring systems required improvement and told us they were reviewing their training and supervision oversight processes as a priority.

Notwithstanding the above, recruitment processes were safe and included interviews, practical tests, and checks on right-to-work documents, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificates, and references. New staff completed an application form, took part in induction training, and shadowed experienced staff for up to 2 weeks. The care coordinator was responsible for delivering the induction and ensuring new staff were competent before working independently.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs at all times. The provider also had a small pool of reserve staff who covered shifts when permanent staff were on holiday or unavailable. Staff completed both online and practical training. People told us they felt staff were professional, knowledgeable and carried out their work with care and confidence.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safe infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. They told us they received sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed the provider’s IPC policy and contingency plans.

The manager told us that if a member of staff contracted COVID-19, they would be removed from work immediately and replaced to reduce the risk of spreading infection. PPE was available both at the office and in people’s homes, and staff confirmed they always had enough supplies. Relatives told us that staff maintained good hygiene, washed their hands regularly and always appeared clean and well-presented when providing care.

The provider did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People were not involved in planning.

The systems in place to record and monitor medicines were not robust. Medicines Administration Record (MAR) charts did not clearly show people’s prescribed medicines or how they should be taken. Medicines were listed on one page, while signatures confirming administration were recorded separately on another page without any description of the medicines given. This was not in line with the provider’s policy on the safe management of medicines. We reviewed records for June, July and August 2025 and found the same issues throughout. Although no one had come to harm, this increased the risk of errors.

Medicines audits had been carried out, but these did not identify the shortfalls we found. For example, some audits indicated that certain medicines were being administered when this was not supported by the records we reviewed. Audits also stated that MAR charts included people’s names, strengths, doses and directions for administration, yet the charts we examined did not contain this level of detail. The provider’s poor auditing process resulted in lack of learning and improvement.

The MAR charts also instructed staff to record a note whenever a code was used. We saw codes being used throughout the MAR charts, but there were no corresponding notes to explain them. This meant that the reasons why people did not receive their medicines as prescribed were not clear.

Staff told us they mainly prompted people to take their medicines, and that the pharmacy delivered them. However, this was not consistent with people’s care plans, which described more active support.

We discussed these concerns with the provider. They told us that the MAR charts were supplied by their policy vendor and had not been reviewed against best practice guidance. The provider acknowledged the shortfalls and said they would review their medicines management processes as a matter of priority.

Notwithstanding the above, there had been no medicine-related incidents, and relatives told us they were happy with how medicines were managed and had no concerns. Staff understood people’s medicines and how they should be administered.