Ferrol 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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents, safeguarding concerns and risks were reviewed through established governance processes. Leaders considered contributing factors, identified lessons learned and shared learning with staff through handovers, supervision and team discussions. Where improvements were identified, actions were taken, including updating care plans and increasing monitoring of people’s needs and risks. These processes supported the delivery of safe care and helped reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities for reporting concerns and were confident that issues would be acted upon. Low-level concerns were addressed promptly, supporting an open culture where safety issues could be raised and discussed.

The provider used information from incidents and other safety events to inform practice and support continuous improvement. However, opportunities remained to strengthen how the longer-term impact of learning was evaluated. While actions were identified and completed, systems were less effective at demonstrating how learning had been embedded over time or how it had contributed to sustained improvements across the service.

Overall, the provider had established processes for identifying, reviewing and learning from safety events. These supported a positive learning culture and helped ensure people received safe care.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain systems of care that supported safety and continuity, including when people moved between services.

Staff understood people's individual needs and how these should be managed. Information about people's health, risks, preferences and support needs was shared through care plans, handovers and day-to-day communication, helping to ensure care remained consistent and responsive.

The service worked effectively with healthcare professionals and implemented recommendations from external agencies, supporting people to receive care that reflected their changing needs and circumstances. Staff recognised when people's needs changed and sought appropriate advice and support to help ensure continuity of care.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and to protect their right to live free from abuse and avoidable harm. Safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately, and referrals were made to external agencies where required.

Safeguarding processes were established and consistently applied. Concerns were reviewed through management and governance systems, with actions taken to reduce risks and support people's safety. Learning from safeguarding events was shared with staff through meetings, supervision and day-to-day communication, helping staff understand risks and respond appropriately.

The provider maintained oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) through a tracker which was regularly reviewed to monitor authorisations, renewals and changes in people's legal status. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of protecting people's rights and ensuring care was provided in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Records indicated that appropriate authorisations had been sought where required, and people's rights were respected.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff 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 associated with people's care and were able to describe how these were managed in practice. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in discussions about care and support, helping to ensure decisions reflected what mattered to them.

Risk management was responsive to people's changing needs. Staff acted on concerns, sought advice from healthcare professionals when required and updated care arrangements to help keep people safe while maintaining as much independence as possible.

The provider had systems in place to monitor risks and review incidents. However, opportunities remained to strengthen how people's involvement in managing risk was recorded, particularly where decisions involved balancing safety with individual choice and control.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental checks, audits and risk assessments were completed, with issues identified and addressed through management oversight processes.

Equipment and technology, such as sensor mats and monitoring systems, were used to support people's safety and wellbeing. Staff understood environmental risks and their responsibilities for maintaining a safe environment, and recommendations from external professionals were acted upon where required.

The provider monitored the condition and safety of the environment and took action when concerns were identified. This helped ensure people lived in an environment that supported their safety, comfort and independence.
 

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

A stable staff team supported continuity of care, enabling staff to develop positive relationships with people and understand their individual needs and preferences.

Staff worked well together and demonstrated the skills and knowledge needed to support people safely. Training, supervision and competency assessments were in place to support staff in their roles and promote consistent standards of care.

Recruitment processes were established and appropriate checks had generally been completed before staff commenced employment. However, sampling of recruitment records identified some inconsistencies in documentation, including gaps in the recording and tracking of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and other supporting information. While we found no evidence that people had been placed at risk, opportunities remained to strengthen oversight and record keeping to provide greater assurance that recruitment processes were applied consistently.

Overall, staffing arrangements supported the delivery of safe care and helped ensure people's needs were met by staff who knew them well and understood how to support them safely.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Regular audits, monitoring and management oversight supported safe practice and helped ensure expected standards were maintained.

Staff followed infection prevention and control procedures and received training and support to carry out their roles safely. Guidance from external professionals was implemented where required, helping to promote consistent practice and maintain a clean and safe environment for people.

Audit processes identified areas for improvement and actions were taken to address any issues found. Low infection rates and the absence of outbreaks during the review period provided assurance that people were protected from avoidable infection risks.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Systems were in place to support the safe ordering, storage, administration and review of medicines.

Medicines governance was supported by regular audits, management oversight and staff competency assessments. Audits covered key areas including medication administration records, storage arrangements, controlled drugs and the use of medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis (PRN). Identified actions were generally followed through, helping to maintain safe practice and reduce the risk of medicines-related harm.

Staff received appropriate training and competency checks and demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities when administering medicines. PRN protocols were in place and provided clear guidance for staff. Where people required frequent PRN medicines, this was reviewed and escalated to healthcare professionals when necessary to ensure treatment remained appropriate.

Overall, medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them appropriately.