Castleford Lodge

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 avoidable harm.

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.

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.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff received training in safeguarding. They understood how to recognize abuse and poor care and report this to their line manager and other relevant professionals. Staff had a good understanding of people’s mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and the need to ensure they were acting in the best interest of a person who lacked capacity. We saw kind and respectful interactions between staff and people. There was no evidence of safeguarding concerns in relation to staff approach or the safe delivery of care. The service had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy in place which staff were familiar with. Safeguarding concerns were logged, investigated and clear actions recorded following investigation.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs, that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff understood the risks to people and told us they were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs. One staff member told us this would be done through daily handovers and flash meetings with the management team. Risks to people’s care were well managed and we observed staff following safe practices. The service managed risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. Risk assessments were person-centred and provided detailed information and were regularly reviewed with each person. The service ensured staff identified, monitored and responded to risks to enable people to live their lives in the way they wanted. We saw clear involvement of the person when able, or relatives in any decisions made that impacted on their life.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe. The provider followed robust processes to ensure staff were recruited and inducted into their role safely. The provider used a dependency tool to assess how many staff were required to support people safely. This was reviewed regularly to allow for any change in people’s needs. Staff had a mandatory training regime and training completion was high.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of any infection spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe from the risks associated with infection control. They spoke about the importance of handwashing and effective wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE). They had a good understanding of appropriate waste disposal and the need to dispose of infectious waste appropriately. They also spoke about measures to contain infection. The management we spoke with were aware of the need to inform relevant professionals in the event of outbreak and the importance of sharing information and following advice from outside agencies. The service had clear roles and responsibilities in accordance with infection prevention and control. We saw regular completed audits of hygiene and cleanliness standards in the building and appropriate documentation and ordering of cleaning products. The service had an updated infection control policy.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happen. The staff responsible for administering medication told us an electronic system was in place and staff had all received training. They felt sufficiently trained and their competency was regularly checked to administer medication safely. Medication was ordered, stored and administered safely to people. People were involved in reviews and assessments relating to their medication. The service had a medication policy that was up to date, clear and covered all aspects of medication management. Medication was regularly audited, reviewed and monitored.