Wemyss 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

We assessed 5 quality statements under this key question. People were safeguarded from abuse and staffing levels appeared to meet people’s needs. There were systems in place to ensure people safely transitioned into other services where required, such as during admissions to hospital. People’s medicines were generally managed safely.

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.

All relatives we spoke with were happy with the way the service supported people to attend appointments and any hospital admissions.

The manager explained the processes in place for ensuring the safe transition within services such as hospitals. The manager told us about a personalised information pack which goes with the person when they are admitted to hospital. The manager went on to tell us about a ‘red bag scheme’ which is a bag containing key documents and essential personal items which can improve admission and discharge processes.

Partners told us the service had good processes in place to support safe systems of care. For example, one partner told us: “Wemyss Lodge senior team have good links with other services and communicate appropriately seeking and sharing information in line with policy and good practice. They are one of the few homes to have taken forward the IT access to GP records and this improves the availability of information with a notable impact on care ad follow up.”

Processes were in place to ensure people transition safely between services. Each person had a ‘hospital pack’ which included key information about the person.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and had no concerns about people’s safety. One relative told us the service did not inform them about a safeguarding incident. We raised this with the provider who confirmed they had attempted to call the relative several times , and was not able to make contact, and we saw evidence to support this.

Staff told us they had received training in safeguarding. One staff member told us; “I've received the training in the classroom and online. I've learned a lot about legislation, how to safeguard people, when and how to report and concerns and to whom. I've also learned types of abuse.” Leaders told us about their safeguarding processes, which included “Informing family members, speaking with multidisciplinary team [where required], speaking with safeguarding and raising this, chasing this up, notifying The Commission, we would also write to people’s family.”

People were supported safely during our site visits, and we observed no safeguarding concerns. People appeared to feel safe around staff. We observed one staff member was proactive in diffusing a situation of conflict between 2 people living at the service.

Systems and processes were in place and were used effectively to keep people safe. Safeguarding incidents were recorded, and actions taken were recorded to improve future practice. Staff had received training in safeguarding.

Relatives told us people had risk assessments in place where required and that people had equipment to help people manage these.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s risks. One staff member told us they felt they didn’t always have enough time to read people’s risk assessments but knew where to find these if needed. However, another staff member told us: “We make the time to read these as they are important. [We do this] more with new residents as well, [it’s important] to read about things like mobility.”

We observed staff supporting people in the least restrictive way to manage individual risks. For example, one person required support from a 1:1 staff member and we saw this staff member encouraged the person to mobilise freely and only stepped in to support where required.

People had detailed risk assessments in place where required, such as for risk of falls, pressure areas and emotional distress, and information relating to these risks was transferred to their care and support plans to support staff to manage these risks. However, one person’s care and support plan lacked some information around seizure management, such as information about any triggers to seizures and how staff should monitor for these. In discussion with the manager, it was confirmed the person had not had a recent seizure, there were no known triggers, and the person was often in communal areas in view of other people. Therefore, this had minimal impact on the care and safety of the person. We raised the lack of detail in the care and support plan with the manager, who addressed this without delay.

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

Relatives told us they felt staff responses to alarm buzzer calls for support or residents calling for help were quickly responded to. Staff popped into rooms regularly with people who were non-verbal or experienced hearing loss to check how people were.

We received mixed feedback from staff about staffing levels as some staff felt there weren’t enough staff at weekends. The manager told us they ensured safe staffing levels by using a dependency tool and deployed staff over the calculated amount. The manager told us agency staff are used to cover shifts where required. Rota’s confirmed staff were deployed in line with the service’s dependency tool.

We observed activities taking place during our site visits and staff had the time to support people to engage in these. Staff did not appear rushed.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were safely recruited. Staff had completed a variety of training courses which appeared to suit the needs of people living within the service. Staff were deployed in line with the service’s staffing dependency tool.

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.

Relatives felt people’s medicines were managed well and raised no concerns. One relative told us “Medicines are handled well. No problems. He is very good at taking them. The medicines are kept secure, and records are kept. We have power of attorney, and the home informs us of any changes.” We saw that people’s preferences were considered, in the way that they liked to take their medicines.

Staff told us they felt medicines training was sufficient for them to be able to do their job and liked the electronic system which had been recently implemented for medicines administration. Staff told us they felt well supported by management and informed us not many errors had occurred since the introduction of electronic systems. Management staff explained to us the comprehensive training schedule for starting and current staff, which included competency checks for staff.

There were policies and processes in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Audits were done regularly and appeared to be mostly effective in identifying areas for improvement, and we saw actions were taken. People generally had detailed risk assessments in place where required relating to medicine administration. However, some people did not have risk assessments in place for paraffin-based creams, which posed a fire risk, and the service’s audits had not identified this. We raised this with the manager who explained they had been previously advised these were not required, however they promptly rectified this and put new risk assessments in place where these were required.