Ferndale Care Home

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. 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 service scored 72 (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.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of recording accidents, incidents, and near misses. These were reviewed by the management team to identify trends, share learning, and implement measures aimed at reducing the likelihood of recurrence. Actions taken included referrals to relevant healthcare professionals and discussions with people and their families to promote safety and wellbeing. Any additional control measures or changes to practice were clearly communicated to staff to ensure a consistent approach to care.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns. Feedback indicated they felt confident that any issues raised would be listened to and addressed with compassion, respect, and understanding.

Staff told us they were routinely kept informed of incidents, learning outcomes, and changes to people’s care and support needs. Accidents, incidents, and key updates were discussed during handovers, team meetings, and group supervision sessions to promote shared learning and continuous improvement. One staff member told us, “Our meetings and handovers keep us up to date with residents’ [people’s] needs and preferences.”

The provider worked with people, families and healthcare professionals to maintain safe, coordinated systems of care and ensure continuity when people moved between services.

Before admission, people and their families were involved in comprehensive pre-assessments to support a safe and positive transition. Professionals confirmed people were appropriately assessed and that staff promptly reported concerns or deterioration, using basic observations and standardised assessment tools to support effective clinical triage.

Staff understood the importance of preparing for new admissions by reviewing care plans, risk assessments and handover information before providing care, and seeking guidance from senior staff when needed. The service worked collaboratively with GPs and specialist healthcare professionals to monitor people’s health and wellbeing and respond promptly to changes in their needs.

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 bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives consistently told us they felt safe and well supported by staff. Feedback was positive, with one person stating, “Yes, I certainly feel safe, and there are always people here to help you.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and were aware of the actions required to protect people from abuse or harm. One staff member told us, “I have had safeguarding training. If I suspected a resident was being abused, I would tell my manager and contact the local authority.” Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and understood the importance of reporting concerns promptly.

We reviewed how the service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which provide a legal framework for restricting a person’s liberty when this is necessary and in their best interests. Records demonstrated that the service had appropriate systems in place to assess capacity, make best-interest decisions where required, and manage DoLS applications effectively. Any applications and authorisations were managed appropriately, ensuring people’s rights were protected and legal requirements were met.

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.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of recording accidents, incidents, and near misses. These were reviewed by the management team to identify trends, share learning, and implement measures aimed at reducing the likelihood of recurrence. Actions taken included referrals to relevant healthcare professionals and discussions with people and their families to promote safety and wellbeing. Any additional control measures or changes to practice were clearly communicated to staff to ensure a consistent approach to care.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns. Feedback indicated they felt confident that any issues raised would be listened to and addressed with compassion, respect, and understanding.

Staff told us they were routinely kept informed of incidents, learning outcomes, and changes to people’s care and support needs. Accidents, incidents, and key updates were discussed during handovers, team meetings, and group supervision sessions to promote shared learning and continuous improvement. One staff member told us, “Our meetings and handovers keep us up to date with residents’ [people’s] needs and preferences.”

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 bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives consistently told us they felt safe and well supported by staff. Feedback was positive, with one person stating, “Yes, I certainly feel safe, and there are always people here to help you.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and were aware of the actions required to protect people from abuse or harm. One staff member told us, “I have had safeguarding training. If I suspected a resident was being abused, I would tell my manager and contact the local authority.” Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and understood the importance of reporting concerns promptly.

We reviewed how the service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which provide a legal framework for restricting a person’s liberty when this is necessary and in their best interests. Records demonstrated that the service had appropriate systems in place to assess capacity, make best-interest decisions where required, and manage DoLS applications effectively. Any applications and authorisations were managed appropriately, ensuring people’s rights were protected and legal requirements were met.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively to deliver safe, effective care that was responsive to people’s individual needs. Recruitment records evidenced a robust, values-based recruitment process including all relevant pre-employment checks.

Staff completed a structured induction programme, shadowing opportunities, probationary reviews, direct observations, and competency assessments to ensure they were equipped to fulfil their roles effectively. People told us they felt there were enough staff working in the home. One person told us,” Yes, I think there are enough staff, they check on me. There are the same staff, they work in shifts, I have got to know them. They work hard and keep going all the time, they don’t rush me.”

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.

The service was clean, well maintained, and free from unpleasant odours. Feedback from relatives was consistently positive, with one relative commenting, “No concerns about the cleanliness at all,” and another stating, “I would say it’s excellent and very clean. The first thing you notice when you walk in is there are no smells; everything smells fresh.”

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the home, supporting safe working practices and effective infection prevention and control measures. A recent infection prevention and control (IPC) audit completed by an external stakeholder rated the service highly, providing further assurance that effective hygiene and infection control standards were being maintained.

The provider had effective systems in place to manage the risk of infection, including staff training, risk assessments, regular monitoring, and comprehensive IPC policies and procedures. These arrangements helped to ensure a safe, clean environment, minimised the risk of infection transmission, and promoted the health, safety, and wellbeing of people using the service.

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.

Medicines were stored safely and securely. Stock levels checked on the day of inspection were correct. Staff completed daily temperature monitoring to ensure medicines were stored within the required temperature range.

People who had been prescribed ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicines had protocols in place to guide staff on when these medicines should be administered. However, the protocols did not always contain sufficiently detailed, person-centred information about when people might need their PRN medicines or how staff should recognise this. Body maps were in place for people prescribed topical creams, providing staff with clear guidance about where these should be applied.

Staff told us that the Neighbourhood Care Home Team visited the service each week. This enabled staff to refer people directly to the appropriate healthcare professional when a review was required, without first having to go through the GP. We saw evidence that this approach had supported people to access timely healthcare advice and review.

Management completed regular medicines audits. Staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines had up-to-date training, and their competency to administer medicines safely had been assessed.