Drumconner Lancing

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

The provider was previously in breach of 3 legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, safeguarding and staffing. Sustained improvements were identified at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

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 effective systems in place to ensure people’s safety concerns were listened to, investigated, and appropriately managed. Staff and managers responded promptly to accidents, incidents, and safety-related events, ensuring these were thoroughly analysed, accurately reported, and followed up in line with policy and best practice. Since the last inspection, significant improvements had been made to strengthen oversight, accountability and the learning culture within the service. A range of visual and easy-to-read dashboards had been introduced to support effective governance and monitoring. These dashboards covered key areas including accidents and incidents, supervision compliance, health and safety checks, care plan and risk assessment reviews, and staff training compliance.

Learning identified from incidents was shared with staff in a timely manner, and any additional training or support needs were addressed promptly to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Incident and accident records were routinely reviewed during daily senior management briefings to identify trends, monitor emerging risks, and support continuous improvement in safety practices. The introduction of these systems had improved the service’s ability to track compliance, identify trends, monitor performance and promptly address outstanding actions. This has supported a more proactive approach to quality assurance and continuous improvement, ensuring lessons learned were embedded into practice.

Staff told us they were encouraged to actively engage in the learning culture of the service and apply improvements identified through quality audits and investigations. A staff member said, “If we see something which is not right, we will report it to the manager, and they will follow this up.” Another staff member told us the manager shared information about safety events promptly through a secure messaging system enabling them to understand what actions were required to reduce the risk of a recurrence and to improve practice. This demonstrated a proactive and open safety culture where staff felt confident to raise concerns and act to reduce the risk of harm to people using the service.

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. Multidisciplinary meetings and care reviews explored all aspects of care, including clinical needs, communication preferences, routines, likes, dislikes and what mattered most to the person. As a result, transitions were effectively managed, reducing anxiety and enabling staff to provide safe, consistent and individualised support.

People described a proactive, welcoming transition into the service, with staff working closely with them, their families and professionals to plan support around individual needs. Preparation before admission gave staff insight into each person’s history, preferences, risks and aspirations, enabling personalised support from the outset, including during respite or convalescence care. A person said, “I had the opportunity to look round, choose my room and meet everyone before I made the decision to come. And I know I absolutely made the right decision.”

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 abuse, discrimination, and avoidable harm.

Safeguarding training was completed by new staff during induction and there was a system to ensure staff undertook refresher training. Staff demonstrated an awareness of the signs indicating a person might be vulnerable to, or experiencing, abuse and knew how to report this appropriately.

Staff worked closely with people, families and professionals to ensure people’s rights and freedoms were respected. They understood how to support people safely while ensuring any restrictions on a person’s liberty were necessary, lawful and proportionate to the risks involved. Appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place, with applications completed promptly and reviewed regularly to ensure restrictions remained in people’s best interests.

People told us they felt safe. Comments included, “This place is brilliant and the staff are caring.” And “I thinkit’slovely.There’salways someone here to help me.” A visitor told us if they had a concern they would, “See [name],she’sexcellent and their door is always open.”

The provider supported people to understand and manage risks holistically. Risk assessments and care plans were detailed and ensured risks were managed safely and in a person-centred way. The registered manager promoted a culture of openness and positive risk management, enabling people to take part in activities that mattered to them using the least restrictive approaches. For example, 1 wheelchair user was supported to attend premiership football matches through carefully planned strategies around transport, seating and stadium access.

Health-related risks were identified and managed through regular monitoring, clinical assessment and multi-disciplinary working. For example, risks linked to pressure and friction were recognised and assessed, with preventative measures implemented to reduce further skin breakdown. There was effective collaboration with Tissue Viability Nurses to monitor wound progression and review treatment plans, that considered existing health conditions and reduced pain sensation.

Measures had been introduced to reduce falls risks, including assessing underlying health conditions, environmental hazards and frailty. Falls were reviewed for trends and triggers to inform prevention strategies, with referrals made to the falls team for specialist advice, support and equipment. Post-fall observations were completed for 24–48 hours, and people were involved in planning support that promoted both safety and independence. These actions contributed to a reduction in falls.

Risk assessments were proactive, helping to identify early signs of deterioration and reduce avoidable harm. For example, pain was assessed using the Abbey Pain Scale alongside observation of non-verbal cues and physical distress. Clinical observations also identified poor wound healing at an early stage, enabling prompt action to reduce the risk of infection and further deterioration. People told us staff responded quickly to falls and used equipment such as sensor mats, walking aids and alarms to reduce risks. A person said if they felt “wobbly” they would, “Press the alarm on my wrist.” Another person was supported to eat and drink independently through specialist utensils and adapted food presentation to reduce choking risks.

The provider effectively identified and managed risks to ensure a safe care environment. Regular health and safety checks, audits and servicing schedules ensured equipment, utilities and statutory certifications, including gas, electrical, water safety and lifting equipment, remained up to date. Fire safety measures were in place with appropriate detection systems, signage, evacuation equipment, staff training and regular drills in place.

People had detailed and personalised personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff understood these well and could support safe and dignified evacuations if required.

The environment was spacious, accessible and adapted to support people’s mobility, privacy and independence, with features such as handrails, wide obstacle-free corridors, overhead hoists and specialist bathing equipment. Individual risk assessments supported people to use the stairs safely, and guidance was in place for the safe use of portable heaters, helping to ensure risks were effectively managed.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. A mixed team of nurses, care and ancillary staff worked well together to provide coordinated, person-centred care. During the inspection, call bells were answered promptly, and staffing levels were sufficient to support people in a timely way.

Recruitment processes were safe and robust, with appropriate pre-employment checks completed before staff started work. Staff completed mandatory and specialist training relevant to people’s individual and clinical needs, including supporting people with a learning disability.

Staff received regular supervision, support and ongoing development opportunities. People were supported by familiar staff who had built positive and trusting relationships with them. People consistently spoke positively about staff skills and knowledge. Comments included, “They always know what they’re doing. They’re on the ball,” and “They explain what they’re going to do and why.”

The provider effectively assessed and managed infection prevention and control (IPC) risks, taking prompt action to reduce the risk of infection spreading. An up-to-date IPC policy reflected current guidance and best practice, and staff received appropriate training to support safe working practices.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities and consistently used PPE correctly. Regular audits were completed by the management team to ensure high standards of hygiene and safe practice were maintained.

People and visitors spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home, which reflected our observations during the inspection. Comments included, “The place is spotlessly clean,” “You can see its clean. It feels like a safe environment,” and “That’s one of the reasons I chose to come here. I’ve got serious allergies and it’s good because it’s so clean and there’s no carpets.”

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were managed safely and in line with people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. GP and pharmacy led medicine reviews were carried out for each person based on their individual health needs. The service worked closely with the GP to make sure treatment remained suitable, while also considering how medicines and treatment affected people’s daily lives and wellbeing.

Care records clearly detailed each person’s prescribed medicines and were updated promptly following any changes. Regular medication audits were completed, including oversight from external agencies, to monitor practice and strengthen safety. Daily checks were also undertaken to provide additional assurance and oversight.

Guidance for PRN (as required) medicines was clear and detailed, so staff knew when and how to give them safely. Risk assessments were in place for people with specific health needs to support safe, personalised medicines management and encourage independence where possible. A person told us, “I’m allowed to manage my own eye drops. I showed staff my alarm clock and that I could do them myself.”

There were effective processes for the safe storage and use of oxygen. Medicines were ordered, stored, administered, and disposed of safely in line with national good practice guidance.