Nesfield 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 to good.

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 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. The service demonstrated a strong commitment to safeguarding people through effective systems and clear documentation. People were safeguarded from abuse and possible harm. Concerns raised were shared quickly and appropriately. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to recognise and report abuse and poor care. Comments included, “If I saw staff speaking to someone in an unkind manner, I would report it to the [registered] manager.” These practices reflected a proactive approach to protecting people from harm and promoting their safety. The service had appropriate systems in place to assess and manage applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment, applications had been made to the relevant body and records were maintained appropriately. We reviewed a sample of DoLS authorisations and found they were current, with expiry dates monitored to ensure timely renewals. Care plans reflected the restrictions in place and were reviewed in line with the authorisation conditions. Staff were aware of the implications of DoLS and how to support individuals in the least restrictive way.

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. The service demonstrated a proactive and innovative approach to risk management through the strategic use of information technology. Digital systems were embedded into daily operations to monitor, assess, and respond to emerging risks in real time. This enabled staff to access up-to-date information, make informed decisions swiftly, and tailor their responses to individual needs and circumstances. The integration of technology supported a culture of responsiveness and accountability, ensuring potential risks were identified early and mitigated effectively. People’s identifiable risks were managed effectively. Risk assessments reflected individual needs and promoted safety and independence. Relatives told us staff knew how to keep people safe. Comments included, “We have no concerns, [staff] respond to whatever we raise positively. Communication is proactive, and they have the resident of the day where they keep us updated.” Staff knew people well and understood there were times when people became distressed and took steps to understand why a person was distressed and what support they needed to express their emotions. We observed care being delivered in line with people’s care plans, which promoted their independence and choices.

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 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. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures, including checks on employment history, references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks to help ensure safer recruitment decisions. People received care and support that was well co-ordinated. They received support from regular care workers so experienced continuity of care. One person told us, “The staff are very good, I see the same people.” Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal, and support to develop and improve services. Comments included, “Yes, I have had a supervision. They are good with that, and they are always checking I am alright and if I need any help.”

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

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