Ferguson 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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. The provider investigated incidents and accidents and acted to help keep people safe. They also analysed incidents and accidents to identify learning, to help prevent them happening again.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People’s needs had been assessed both before and after their admission to Ferguson Lodge. This included discussions with other professionals involved in the person’s care.

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 told us they felt safe living at Ferguson Lodge. A person said, “I always feel safe, and I’d let them know if I didn't.”

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. Where potential risks had been identified, the provider carried out a risk assessment which detailed the measures in place to keep people safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider had effective systems to monitor heath and safety risks within the home. All health and safety related checks relating to the premises were up to date.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People confirmed staff were on hand to help them when needed. A person told us, “I like to be in my room, but they are always knocking to see if I’m ok. If I use my call bell they seem to come quickly.”

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 home was clean and well maintained.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Systems were in place to make sure people’s medicines were administered safely. Medicine stock mainly balanced with records, and a running balance was in place for assurance. People’s medicines allergies were recorded accurately. A system was in place to record the actual time of administration for paracetamol although some doses had been given too close to the previous dose without the recommended gap.

We looked at the medicine care plans for 5 people, some of these were not sufficiently detailed.Guidance was not in place for all creams applied by care staff as part of personal care and some records were incomplete.

Some people were prescribed medicines to be taken on a ‘when required’ basis or with a variable dose. Information for how these medicines should be administered was in place and accessible but needed further person-centred detail.

Medicines were stored securely including controlled drugs. Temperatures were recorded for the medicine rooms and fridges. Controlled drugs were managed appropriately.

Policies and procedures were in place to support the administration of medicines. Staff were trained and assessed for competency. A monthly audit cycle was in place but was not sufficiently detailed to pick up some of the issues we found.