We carried out a review of the data available to us about Franklyn Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Franklyn Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Franklyn Lodge is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability. At the time of this inspection, there were four people using the service.
People living at the home have their own bedrooms and have access to communal facilities including bathrooms, lounge and dining areas, the kitchen and garden.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Right Support: People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were offered choices about what they wanted to do and the support they required from staff. People’s care plans provided guidance for staff on meeting their needs in the way they preferred. People were supported to participate in activities that were important to them.
Right Care: People received person centred care. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people were supported in a way that promoted their dignity, privacy and human rights. People did not have to wait for support when they required it. Personal care was provided in a way that was respectful of people’s privacy and dignity.
Right Culture: The registered manager and staff understood the importance of ensuring people received good quality care and support that reflected best practice in working with people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Staff had received training in understanding learning disabilities and autism and were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. Information was shared to ensure staff were up to date on current best practice. Accidents, incidents and concerns were shared with local authorities, family members and the CQC where appropriate. Learning from incidents and concerns was used to improve staff practice in caring and supporting people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 21 February 2020) and there were breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective and Well-led which contain those requirements. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Franklyn Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Franklyn Lodge, 58 Kings Road is residential home providing accommodation and personal care for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability. At the time of this inspection, there were four people using the service.
The service accommodated four people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities. On the ground floor people using the service had access to the communal kitchen the lounge and the garden.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We identified issues around safety and effectiveness of the care provided. The service did not have sufficient fire safety precautions in place and people were at risk of not receiving effective support in case of fire. Systems relating to the management of medicines were not robust enough to demonstrate people were fully protected from unsafe use of medicines. Available evidence on staff training and supervision was insufficient and the provider could not evidence that staff had appropriate skills and knowledge to support people.
Staff knew how to communicate with people effectively. However, we noted the service would benefit from more easy read/pictorial information at the premises about their complaint procedures and safeguarding matters. We have made a recommendation about it.
Other checks and risk assessment related to the safety of the environment had been undertaken. Other risks to health and wellbeing of people who used the service had been assessed and staff knew about them.
There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff deployed to respond to people’s needs promptly. People said they felt safe with staff and staff knew what action to take if they thought people were at risk of harm. There were systems in place to ensure infection control and management of accidents and incidents.
People were supported to live a healthy and dignified life. Their health and support needs had been assessed and the assessment was holistic. People’s nutritional and health and care needs and preferences had been taken into consideration when planning their care. People were involved in planning and reviewing of the support they were receiving from the service. Staff ensured people had prompt access to healthcare professionals when needed. Personal care was provided respectfully thus ensuring people’s privacy was protected. Staff encouraged people to be independent and involved people in making decisions about their care.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensured that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
There were systems in place in case people and relatives wanted to make a complain. People and relatives were encouraged to share their opinion about the service provided. We saw that their feedback was positive. External professionals stated they were pleased with how the service supported people with their needs and development.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 24 July 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe, effective and well led sections of this full report. We have identified breaches in relation to safety, staffing and governance of the service at this inspection.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Franklyn Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the last inspection on 3 December 2014, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of people's likes and dislikes. Care plans were reviewed and were updated when people's needs changed.
Relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided.
Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.
Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines received into the home and for their storage, administration and disposal.
We found the premises were clean and tidy. Bedrooms had been personalised with people's belongings to assist people to feel at home.
Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from management.
Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005).
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The home had made necessary applications for DoLS as it was recognised that there were areas of people’s care in which the person’s liberties were being deprived. Records showed that the relevant authorisations had been granted and were in place.
There were suitable arrangements for the provision of food to ensure that people's dietary needs were met.
Staff were informed of changes occurring within the home through daily handovers and staff meetings. Staff told us that they received up to date information about people and the service, and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns at these meetings.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
We undertook an unannounced inspection on 3 December 2014 of Franklyn Lodge – 58 Kings Road. This service is registered for a maximum of four adults who have a learning disability. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service. Three people were able to understand and communicate verbally. One person was able to understand but could not communicate verbally and would use specific gestures which staff were able to understand and recognise.
At our last inspection on 17 October 2013 the service met the regulations inspected.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At the time of our inspection, the registered manager was temporarily not at the home managing the regulated activities. An interim manager was overseeing the service who was joined at the inspection by two senior managers of the provider.
The provider had taken steps to help ensure people were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse because there were clear safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures in place to protect people. Care workers were aware of what action to take if they suspected abuse.
People were not restricted from leaving the home and were encouraged to meet their relatives. We saw evidence that people went out to various activities and people identified as being at risk when going out in the community had risk assessments in place and we saw that if required, they were supported by staff when they went out.
People were cared for by staff that were supported to have the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care workers spoke positively about their experiences working at the home.
Positive caring relationships had developed between people who used the service and staff and people were treated with kindness and compassion. We observed people were very relaxed and were free to come and go as they pleased in the home and were smiling and appeared to be at complete ease.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs and people were consulted and activities reflected people’s individual interests, likes and dislikes.
People’s religious and cultural needs were accommodated, and people were supported to maintain links with the wider community.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. There was an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. We saw there were systems in place for the maintenance of the building and equipment to monitor the safety of the service.
We observed that people who used the service appeared well cared for and were dressed appropriately. Staff interacted well with people and had encouraged people to engage in various activities they liked. Staff supported people with making choices regarding areas such as activities and meals they wanted. There were arrangements for obtaining consent from either people or their representatives.
People who used the service stated that they had access to healthcare professionals and this was confirmed in care records examined. Assessments, including risk assessments had been carried out. The care provided had been reviewed regularly to ensure that the current needs of people were met. There were suitable arrangements in place to manage medicines.
Staff were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. People informed us that there were sufficient staff on duty to care for them.
The home had a complaints procedure. People and a relative said they knew who to talk to if they were unhappy with the care provided. The home had a record of compliments received.
Care records indicated that the needs of people had been attended to.The care records contained assessments, care plans and reviews. Details of appointments with healthcare professionals were recorded.
The staff records indicated that staff had been provided with essential training. Staff informed us that they worked well as a team and felt supported by their manager. Staff were aware of the safeguarding policy and procedure aimed at protecting people from abuse and understood their role.
Arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of care provided. People and the relative we spoke with expressed satisfaction with the services provided and indicated that they knew they could talk to the manager if they were unhappy or had complaints.