Ferndale

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 told us they felt safe. Staff supported people who had capacity to make decisions about risk. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. People were complimentary about the staff at the home. People felt able to raise any concerns. People told us staff were always available when they needed help or support.

This service scored 78 (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 were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.

Two people said “Yes” when we asked if they felt safe; both said they would tell staff if they had any concerns. Two relatives told us staff kept their family member safe. One relative said, “[Name] wouldn’t be safer anywhere else.” People’s human rights were being respected. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw staff supported people to make as many of their own decisions as possible. Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means and this was well documented. Staff demonstrated good practice around assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and best interest decision-making. Relatives were consulted when best interest decisions were needed. One relative said, “Yes I feel involved. With Ferndale we discuss [name’s] care all the time. If anything comes up we talk about it, they phone me and I can phone them. We talk to them all the time.”

Staff received training in how to identify possible signs of abuse and the appropriate action to take. The provider’s safeguarding policy gave clear guidance for staff about how to raise a safeguarding alert. When people had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make a certain decision, staff clearly recorded assessments and any best interest decisions. Where needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to deprivation of liberty authorisations were being met.

Staff kept people safe by regularly reviewing and updating people's risk assessments and their care as their needs changed. People's individual care plans were designed to guide staff practice. They included guidance for staff in relation to how to prevent or appropriately manage risks associated with any incidents or accidents which had occurred.

There were care plans in place for emotional distress which staff understood and followed. One relative told us, “They’re [staff] very good at de-escalating; they have great techniques and a lot of experience with autism. They use their voices and comforting adds reassurance.”

People were able to take risks as part of their chosen lifestyle. One relative said, “Oh yes, they’ve [staff] got it all down to a tee [managing risks]. They’re always looking after [name].”

Staff recognised signs when people experienced emotional distress and knew how to support them.

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 were well trained and had ongoing support in their roles. Staff told us they felt respected, well supported and valued. One staff member said, “Fab support. We have regular supervisions, but we speak every day and can offload. Training is good; if we need an update they send you an email to remind you.”

People said they liked the staff who supported them. We saw people clearly knew and trusted staff. Both people said the staff were “Good”. Relatives spoke very highly of the staff team. One relative said, “I think the staff as a whole are pretty wonderful really, very caring.” Another told us, “The staff are absolutely wonderful. I can only praise them.”

Staff were present throughout our visit providing people with the care and support they needed. There were enough staff employed to meet people's care and support needs, flexibly, safely, and staffing levels matched the staffing rota.

There was a thorough staff recruitment process. References were taken up, work history checked, and Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) security checks carried out, prior to new staff starting in post. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

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.