Earsdon Grange Care 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

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 harm and abuse.

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.

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.

Staff understood the importance of learning from incidents and responded promptly to concerns. Leaders reviewed accidents, medicines issues, and safeguarding events, and staff told us they discussed learning in supervisions and at staff meetings.

Managers described being “actively involved” in understanding what had gone wrong and “analysing where we can improve,” showing an open and reflective culture. People and relatives reported they felt safe and that staff acted quickly when issues were raised.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People were supported through established systems that kept them safe. Care plans, including pre‑admission assessments and risk assessments, were up to date and regularly reviewed. Staff knew people well, and visiting professionals confirmed the service escalated concerns appropriately and followed clinical advice. Where people needed hospital care, relevant information was shared to ensure safe transition and continuity.

People were safe and protected from harm and abuse. Staff recognised and acted on safeguarding concerns, and procedures were robust. People repeatedly told us they felt “very safe,” and relatives described the home as “safe and friendly” with good communication when issues arose.

Safeguarding logs, notifications and follow-up letters showed appropriate reporting and transparent communication with families. Staff understood whistleblowing and said they would report any poor practice, and leaders had taken decisive action in response to past concerns.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) records were up to date and aligned with care plans, and we saw evidence of applications, renewals and conditions being monitored. There was no evidence of any unlawful restrictions applied to people’s rights and freedoms.

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.

People were involved in decisions about their safety, care plans reflected personal preferences and positive risk management in line with their wishes. Staff supported people to manage risks linked to their individual care needs and preferences.

People said staff “listen and act” when concerns were raised, and relatives told us the team involved them in decisions about health changes, falls and care adjustments. Staff demonstrated awareness of triggers, early warning signs and escalation procedures.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Premises, equipment and environmental safety checks were carried out to support the delivery of safe care whilst maintaining a homely feel.

People were involved in discussions around the safety of the home environment. Most areas were well maintained. We noted a small number of areas for improvement such as some environmental wear and tear. The provider took immediate action following our feedback to address these issues.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The registered manager maintained good oversight of staffing levels and checked these against dependency levels. Staff, people and relatives said there were sufficient staff and, we observed staff were visible and call bells were answered promptly.

Recruitment checks were completed and new staff received a structured induction.

Staff felt supported and described the team as “brilliant,” and “like a little family.” Professionals reported staff were responsive and knowledgeable about the people they cared for and, were able to implement care plan changes in a timely manner. On-going training ensured staff maintained the knowledge and skills required to deliver safe care.

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.

The home was clean; there were no malodours and staff followed cleaning schedules in line with good hygiene practices. All staff had completed infection control training, and competency checks were in place for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene. We observed staff supporting and encouraging people to use handwash facilities prior to and after meals. We also observed staff following good hand hygiene practices after care-related tasks.

Sluice rooms and laundry systems followed safe dirty‑to‑clean pathways and waste disposal was in line with required standards. People and relatives spoke positively about home cleanliness, and one person told us the home was “beautifully clean.”

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

People received their prescribed medicines in accordance with their needs. The clinical room was secure, clean, tidy and fit for purpose. Staff had access to the medicines policy, related guidance and information. Staff followed safe medicines procedures, and the providers electronic system supported safe administration.

Staff used appropriate omission and exception codes when a medicine was not administered and sought timely advice when queries arose. Medicine reviews were up to date and staff worked closely with district nurses to ensure people received their medicines safely. People told us their medicines were “always on time,” and relatives confirmed timely communication when medicines were changed or newly prescribed.