CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ferguson Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Overall rating Requires Improvement; inspectors found an Inadequate well-led service, with unsafe medicines, staffing and risk controls.
This was an unannounced inspection over five visits. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care and medicine records for 27 people, recruitment files and management records.
They found widespread problems with risk assessments, medicines, safeguarding, consent, staffing, training, communication and management checks. People sometimes had to wait for support. Some people were restricted in chairs without the right legal process.
Staff were kind in their interactions. People’s food, drink and healthcare needs were generally supported, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. However, the overall rating fell from Good in 2018 to Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate.
Food and drink
People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People said food was appetising and alternatives were available.
“People told us food was appetising and that alternatives were available if they did not want to choice on the menu.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Staffing delays
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. People sometimes had to wait for help, and staff used tables to restrict people in chairs while they were busy elsewhere.
“There were delays in staff responding to people who required help due to their being insufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine quantities did not always match administration records. Records for creams, patches and medicines given when needed were also incomplete.
“Quantities of remaining medicines did not always match the records of doses administered.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding
seriousSome risks were not properly assessed or monitored. The home did not always recognise or report incidents that should have been referred to safeguarding authorities.
“Safeguarding systems were not effective in protecting people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always completed for restrictions such as bedrails, lap belts or locked bedroom doors.
“People's ability to consent to their care and treatment was not always assessed.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home’s audits did not identify or correct the problems found by inspectors. Some important records were not available or were difficult to locate.
“Effective governance systems were not in place.” from the report
Duty of candour
seriousThe home did not have records showing that it had fully met its duty to be open and honest after notifiable safety incidents.
“Documentation to show how the provider was meeting its duty of candour responsibilities was not available.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty for each shift, and how will you prevent people waiting for personal care or other support?
- 02What checks now confirm that medicines, including creams, patches and when-needed medicines, are given and recorded correctly?
- 03How are safeguarding incidents identified and reported to the local authority?
- 04How are capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded for bedrails, lap belts, chair restrictions or locked bedroom doors?
- 05What audits and checks now show that risks, equipment, staffing and care records are being monitored effectively?
This was an unannounced, focused inspection prompted by concerns about risk and equipment; Safe, Effective and Well-led were assessed, while ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with plans to improve infection control and health and safety systems.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 19 September 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, suitable care planning and kind relationships.
People were supported with fresh food, healthcare appointments, activities and links with family and the local community. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and said the service remained Good since the previous inspection.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. People appeared relaxed and received respectful emotional support.
“The staff team treated people, and their relatives, with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home used care needs to help decide staffing levels. Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and recorded safely.
“People's needs were met in a timely manner and call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Fresh food and health support
Meals were freshly prepared and people were supported with specialist diets and healthcare appointments.
“The chef provided a well-balanced diet made up of freshly made meals, fruit and enough hydration.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and personal profiles included people's histories, preferences and what mattered to them. This helped staff plan meaningful activities.
“Staff spent time getting to know people and this information was used in planning activities.” from the report
Planned improvements
minorThe report says the home was developing its infection control and health and safety systems. Inspectors did not rate these as a failure, but families may want to check what was changed after the inspection.
“There were also plans to improve health and safety systems.” from the report
- 01What improvements to infection control were made after the inspection?
- 02What changes were made to the health and safety systems mentioned in the report?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated when people's care needs change?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 05How are activities chosen to reflect each person's history, preferences and interests?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the first day unannounced and the second day announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ferguson Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.