Franklin Avenue

Updated 2 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 12 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 18 hours' notice of the inspection.

Updated 2 February 2022

Franklin Avenue is a residential care home for six adults who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The accommodation is single storey and is accessible for people who may also have a physical disability. There were six people living at the home during this inspection.

At the last inspection in November 2015, the home was rated Good. During this inspection, which took place on 14 December 2017, we found the home remained Good.

Why the home is still rated Good:

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and knew how to keep people safe. Processes were also in place to ensure risks to people were managed safely.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider carried out checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable and safe to work at the home.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Systems were in place to ensure people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

There was evidence that the home responded in an open and transparent way when things went wrong, so that lessons could be learnt and improvements made.

People received care and support that promoted a good quality of life and was delivered in line with current legislation and standards. Staff received training to ensure they had the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have enough food and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Risks to people with complex eating and drinking needs were being managed appropriately.

Staff worked with other external teams and services to ensure people received effective care, support and treatment. People had access to healthcare services, and received appropriate support with their on-going healthcare needs.

The building provided people with sufficient accessible space and modified equipment to meet their needs.

The home acted in line with legislation and guidance regarding seeking people’s consent. People were supported to make their own decisions as far as possible.

Staff provided care and support in a kind and compassionate way. People were encouraged to make decisions about their daily routines. Arrangements were in place to ensure appropriate independent support was provided for more complex decisions.

People’s privacy, dignity, and independence was respected and promoted.

People received personalised care and they were given regular opportunities to participate in meaningful activities, both in and out of the home.

Arrangements were in place for people to raise any concerns or complaints they might have about the home. These were responded to in a positive way, in order to improve the quality of service provided.

Despite the fact no one living at the home was in receipt of end of life care, there were plans to ensure staff understood people’s individual preferences and wishes. So if the need arose, staff would be prepared and able to carry out those wishes.

There was strong leadership at the home which resulted in people receiving high quality and person centred care. The registered manager ensured that staff understood their legal responsibilities and accountability. This approach had created a positive culture that was open, inclusive and empowering for the people living there. People were actively involved in how the home was run and staff adapted processes to ensure this was done in a meaningful way.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive continuous improvement. The registered manager worked in partnership with key organisations and agencies for the benefit of people living at the home.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.