Fernways

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 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, in which concerns about safety are listened to, safety events are investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons are learned to continually identify and embed good practices.

The provider had a system to record accidents and incidents within the service. The management team investigated and identified the root cause of accidents and incidents to avoid or minimise reoccurrence. This helped to ensure people remained as safe as possible.

People and staff were kept informed of the outcomes of any investigations. They were encouraged to report concerns and safety events without fear of blame or repercussions.

Staff were able to share ideas, asked questions and this helped to enhance their learning and development.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

People's needs were assessed before they started using the service. The assessment included all aspects of care, such as the person’s mobility, their nutritional needs, personal hygiene care, medicines and social lifestyle. The assessment was carried out with the involvement of the person and their relatives. This helped to ensure staff were able to safely meet the person’s needs.

The management team gathered as much information from people and their relatives so that care plans reflected how the person wanted to care and support them. This also enabled the provider to determine if they could meet people’s individual needs effectively.

The management team worked closely with other professionals to ensure that there was a safe continuity of care when people move between services. This enabled them to identify any changes in people’s needs and act upon them. For example, if a person’s mobility had reduced following a fall, the management team would seek support and advice from an Occupational Therapist to ensure the person remain safe when mobilising such as using a walking aid.

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.

People were supported to understand safeguarding, what being safe meant to them, and how to raise concerns when they didn’t feel safe, or they had concerns about their safety and of other people.

People and their relatives commented positively about the service. People told us they felt safe when staff visited them and would feel comfortable in saying if they did not feel safe.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risks of harm or abuse. Records showed and staff confirmed they had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm and had received training in this subject. A member of staff told us, “I will report any abuse to the manager. If nothing is done, I will report it to service manager.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically so that care met their needs in a way that was safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that matter to them.

The provider had risk assessments in place to ensure care and support was planned and delivered in a safe way. Where people were identified at risk appropriate measures were put in place, for example, when people were at risk of falls. There was guidance for staff to follow on what actions to take in relation to manage risks to ensure people were as safe as possible.

People were supported by staff who understood how to provide safe care and reduce risks. Staff monitored people's health and welfare and reported any new risk to the management team so appropriate actions could be taken to mitigate the risk of harm.

Risk assessments and management plans were reviewed regularly to reflect changes in people’s circumstances, preferences, and needs.

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

The management team ensured people received care and support in a safe environment. They carried out an assessment to identify any potential hazards and put measures in place to mitigate those risks.

Equipment used by staff, for example, hoists were regularly checked to ensure they were functioning properly. We also noted the provider carried out a health and safety risk assessment of the premises to ensure people, relatives, visitors and staff remained 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.

At our last inspection, we noted the provider did not have an effective system in place to ensure all calls were taking place and there had not been any missed calls. During this assessment, we found the provider had a system for staff to sign in the office when they visited people. This helped to ensure people received their visits on time.

People received care and support from staff who knew them well. There were enough staff to provide personalised care and support. The same staff or group of staff visited people, and this helped with continuity of care and consistency.

People were protected from the risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff. The provider had effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the service.

People and their relatives felt the staff had the knowledge and skills to look after people who used the service. A person said, “The staff are good.” A relative told us, “I am very happy with the support [family member] is getting.”

Staff received appropriate training and professional development. They completed training in a number of key areas such as moving and handling, first aid, food hygiene to ensure they were competent in their role. Staff commented that the standard of training they had received was good.

The service had an induction programme for all new staff. The induction covered a number of areas which included staff roles and responsibilities and key policies and procedures. Staff would shadow an experienced member of staff until they were confident to work on their own. New staff had a probation period that allowed the provider to evaluate their skills, performance, and how well they integrated into the service culture.

Staff received appropriate supervision and support which helped to ensure they were able to provide effective care. This meant that management team regularly assessed and monitored the staff’s ability to meet people’s needs.

The provider had an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance.

Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, masks, and aprons to protect the spread of infection. They had received training in infection control and understood the basic infection control precautions they needed to follow such as proper hand washing.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

At our last inspection, we noted the provider did not have protocols in place for PRN medicines, which are medicines prescribed and taken as and when required such as pain relief medicines like paracetamol. There were also numerous gaps on Medicine Administration Records (MAR) where people's medicines may not have been given. Although we found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, the provider had not managed medicines in a safe and proper way.

During this visit, we found the service had appropriate arrangements in relation to management of medicines. Where people needed assistance to take their medicine, there was guidance in place on how staff must support them. Staff had received training in the management of medicine.

From records, we saw people had received their medicines as prescribed and staff had signed them to indicate people had taken their medicines. There were medicines policy and procedures in place for staff to follow when supporting people with their medicines. The provider assessed staff competencies around medicines management.