Sennen 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

The provider had safe systems in place to help ensure people did not suffer abuse or come to avoidable harm. There were processes in line with best practice to ensure any decisions around care were made in people’s best interests. Staff were very proactive in trying to minimise any agreed restrictions people required to promote their safety. There were enough staff in place to meet people’s needs. Staff were skilled in their role and had a good understanding of meeting people’s complex health, behavioural and communication needs.

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.

There were processes in place to minimise any restrictions that were assessed as necessary to promote people’s safety. The provider had a team of behavioural support specialists who helped staff develop a positive behaviour support approach. This ensured any restrictions were minimised and in people’s best interests. The provider had policies and procedures to help ensure people were protected from suffering abuse or coming to avoidable harm. They had investigated and reported safeguarding concerns to relevant safeguarding authorities, which reflected an open and transparent approach to helping ensure people were safe.

People were unable to give verbal feedback to us about safeguarding, due to their complex communication needs. Relatives told us that they trusted staff to keep their family members safe. Comments included, “Staff are looking after [my relative] and keeping them safe.“ Relatives were very positive about how staff kept them informed when incidents occurred. However, they told us that lines of communication between relatives and management staff were not always that effective. This was in part due to the absence of the registered manager, who was temporarily away from the service.

Staff told us they received safeguarding training. They were confident in following the correct procedures if they had concerns about people’s safety or welfare. Comments included, “[There is an] open and transparent culture, and [staff are] willing to learn. Mistakes are learning opportunities.” Staff used guidance in people’s care plans to help ensure the care they provided was least restrictive and in line with the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider’s senior management had a good oversight of the service. They oversaw how incidents or safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated and followed up. This helped to ensure any safeguarding concerns were quickly addressed.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

Staff were motivated and spoke enthusiastically about their jobs. They said they had received appropriate training for their role and that there was a positive working relationship within the staff team as a whole.

The provider had an appropriate training programme in place, which included specific training around supporting people with a learning disability, positive behaviour support and specialist communication strategies. Some staff had fallen behind with the provider’s mandatory training updates. There was a plan in place to ensure all staff would complete required training by the end of January 2024. There were appropriate processes in place to ensure staff had the appropriate skills, experience and character to work with people.

People were unable to give verbal feedback to us about staffing due to their complex communication needs. Relatives we spoke to were positive about staff. They told us that many staff had worked with their relatives for an extended period of time and had developed a good understanding and working relationship. Comments included, “Generally, they [staff] are very good at looking after [my relative].”

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.