Archived: Franklin House Limited

Updated 14 July 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced inspection and took place on 2 and 3 June 2016.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications the CQC had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us without delay. We also reviewed the inspection report from the previous inspection and contacted the Local Authority (LA) to ask if they had any concerns about the service, which they did not. We also reviewed information submitted to us by the provider in the ‘provider information return (PIR). This document asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they are planning to make.

Some of the people living at the home were unable to give their verbal opinion about the care and support they received. Therefore we examined people’s care records and observed the care and support provided to them in the communal areas to capture their experiences.

During our inspection we spoke with one person who used the service, three relatives, the owners, the registered manager and deputy manager, three care staff and the cook.

We looked around the building, observed how staff cared for and supported people, reviewed records and looked at other information which helped us assess how people’s care needs were met. We observed a lunchtime meal and watched the administration of medicine to check that this was done safely.

As part of the inspection we reviewed the care records of four people living at the home. The records included their care plans and risk assessments. We looked at three staff files to check that the recruitment process had been carried out correctly. We also reviewed other information about the service, such as the training programme, quality assurance process, policies, complaints and compliments.

Updated 14 July 2016

This inspection took place on the 2 and 3 June, 2016. Our visit on the 2 June was unannounced.

We last inspected the home in April 2014 where we found three breaches of the regulations reviewed. These were in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), risk assessments for people who used the service and quality assurance checks. During this inspection we found the home to be compliant with all the regulations we inspected.

Franklin House is a privately owned care home situated on the fringe of Oldham town centre, with easy access to local amenities, shops and public transport. The home provides residential care for people over the age of 65, offering both long-term and respite placements and specialises in caring for people with dementia. It has 38 single rooms, all with en-suite facilities and the accommodation is at ground level. There is a large enclosed garden in the centre of the home with raised flower beds, shrubs, garden furniture and a summer house which is easily accessible to wheelchair users.

When we visited the service a registered manager was in place. 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.

Staff had a good understanding of the procedures needed to keep people safe and what action they should take in order to protect vulnerable people in their care. Risk assessments had been completed to show how people should be supported with everyday risks, such as risks to their nutrition and these had been reviewed regularly.

People we spoke with felt there were sufficient, appropriately trained staff available to support people in the home and our observations during the inspection confirmed this. Staff responded promptly to people’s needs. Recruitment checks had been carried out on all staff to ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting with vulnerable people.

Medicines were stored correctly and were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and been assessed as competent to safely administer medicines.

Environmental checks of the home were up-to-date. Although the home was well-maintained there were some communal areas that would benefit from redecoration. The owner of the home told us that there was an on-going programme of redecoration and refurbishment, including a new roof and new corridor toilets. A treatment room for visiting healthcare professionals was also planned.

The home was clean and free from unpleasant odours and systems were in place for the prevention and control of infection. Bathrooms and toilets contained adequate supplies of soap and paper towels and we saw that staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.

Staff had undertaken a variety of face-to-face training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required for their roles. Staff supervision was undertaken regularly by the registered manager and deputy manager.

People’s nutritional needs were closely monitored and the food looked appetising. There were sufficient staff available to help those people who needed support with eating.

The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and where people were deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment the appropriate deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) authorisation was in place.

People told us the staff were kind and our observations confirmed this. Care plans were ‘person-centred’ and were reviewed regularly. Through talking to staff and relatives we found that people were treated as individuals and that staff really knew each person and responded to their needs in a caring way.

The home had taken part in the ‘six steps end of life training programme’ which had helped staff have a better understanding of the needs of people approaching the end of their life and the needs of their families. The home had created a dedicated ‘family room’ for the use of relatives of those who nearing end of life.

People were supported to maintain good health and where needed specialist healthcare professionals, such as dieticians and district nurses were involved with their care. Families told us that they were informed promptly of any changes to their relatives’ health.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and people we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. The home had not received any complaints since early 2015.

Quality assurance processes such as regular audits of care documentation and environmental audits, for example of cleanliness of the kitchen, were in place to ensure that the service delivered high quality care.

We observed a calm and happy atmosphere in the home with staff working well together as a team. Staff and relatives found the registered manager approachable and we observed that she had a ‘hands on’ approach and helped out with caring for people who used the service, as well as managing the service.

.