Nurtured Care NE

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 understood the importance of reporting incidents and concerns and described feeling able to raise issues without fear of blame. Leaders reviewed incidents and near misses and shared learning with staff to reduce the risk of recurrence. Improvements were made where risks were identified, supporting safer care over time. Staff told us, “If I had any concerns I would raise them with a manager.”

The provider worked with people and relevant partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Information was shared to support continuity, including when people moved between services or experienced changes in their needs. Staff demonstrated awareness of their roles in managing transitions and reducing risks, which helped people to receive consistent and coordinated support. A relative told us, “From having the reablement team evaluate [Person]’s needs they were then passed on to the company and discussed directly with me.”

The provider worked with people and partner agencies to understand what being safe meant to individuals. Staff had appropriate knowledge of safeguarding and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Safeguarding issues were shared with the relevant authorities in a timely way, helping to protect people from abuse, neglect and avoidable harm. A relative said, “[Person] is very safe being looked after by the team… if there are concerns, they raise this with me straight away.”

The provider did not always work effectively with people to understand and manage risks. While some risk assessments were in place, people were not consistently involved in discussions about how risks affected their daily lives. This meant opportunities were missed to fully balance safety with independence and choice. One person told us, “I have told the office before and it is in my notes, but the times are still not right.”

The provider identified and controlled most risks within the care environment. Equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care, and checks were completed to reduce environmental hazards. Where risks were identified, actions were taken to address them, helping to maintain a safe setting for people and staff.

The provider did not always have enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing pressures and gaps in support and supervision meant care was not always delivered as consistently as required. This meant that people’s safety and wellbeing needs were not always fully met. One person told us visits were late and said, “They (staff) sometimes don’t come until 5pm or 5.45pm.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff followed infection prevention and control procedures, and the environment was kept clean. Where risks of infection were identified, action was taken to reduce the risk of spread and concerns were shared appropriately.

The provider made sure medicines were managed safely and in line with people’s needs. Staff followed agreed procedures for the storage, administration and recording of medicines. People were involved in decisions about their medicines where appropriate, including when changes were made.