Ferrol Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives consistently spoke positively about the caring approach of staff. One person told us, “The support here is fantastic, I can't speak highly enough.”

During our assessment, we observed warm and respectful interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff knew people well and took time to provide reassurance, encouragement and support in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

People and their relatives described staff as caring, attentive and approachable. Staff respected people's privacy, promoted their dignity and adapted their approach to meet individual communication needs. This helped people feel valued, listened to and supported.

Staff were attentive to people's emotional wellbeing and responded with patience and empathy when people required reassurance or assistance. Feedback and observations demonstrated a positive and caring culture where people were treated with kindness and respect.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's backgrounds, routines and what was important to them, and used this knowledge to provide personalised care.

People and their relatives told us staff knew them well and respected their wishes and preferences. Staff adapted their communication and approach to suit individual needs, helping people feel involved and understood. One relative told us “The staff treat residents as individuals they look them in the eye when asking them something.”

Care plans contained person-centred information, including people's life histories, preferences and daily routines. This supported staff to deliver care that reflected people's individual needs, strengths and choices.

Overall, people received care from staff who understood them as individuals and were committed to providing support that respected their identity, preferences and personal experiences.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans reflected people's preferences, routines and abilities, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of this information.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their daily lives and were offered choices about how they received support. Staff respected people's preferences and adapted their approach to reflect individual needs and wishes. One person told us, “I do what I want when I want. If I didn't like it I would've left years ago.”

Staff supported people to maintain as much independence as possible while balancing any risks associated with their care and support needs. People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to retain control over important aspects of their day-to-day lives.

Overall, people were supported to make choices and maintain their independence by staff who understood and respected their rights, preferences and individuality.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care plans provided guidance about people's needs, preferences and communication styles, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of how individuals expressed themselves. People and their relatives consistently described staff as responsive and available when support was needed. One person told us, “The staff are great here, they're always around to help.”

During our assessment, we observed staff responding promptly and appropriately when people required assistance, reassurance or support. Staff knew people well and adapted their approach to meet individual needs and preferences, helping people feel listened to and supported.

Overall, people received responsive care from staff who understood their needs and took timely action when support was required.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about the working environment and described a supportive team culture. They felt able to approach colleagues and managers for guidance, and we observed staff working collaboratively and respectfully.

A stable workforce supported continuity of care and enabled staff to develop a good understanding of the people they supported. Staff received an induction, training and supervision, which helped them carry out their roles confidently and safely. One relative told us, "They are all personally invested in the residents and caring for them."

Staff told us they felt supported by their colleagues and managers, and there was evidence of positive working relationships throughout the service. This contributed to a culture where staff could work effectively together to meet people's needs.

However, opportunities remained to strengthen how staff wellbeing was formally monitored and evidenced. While informal support was evident, the provider had less evidence of structured approaches to demonstrating how staff wellbeing was proactively reviewed and promoted over time.