You are here

Archived: Franklin House Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

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 bet

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 July 2016

The service was safe.

Arrangements were in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people using the service.

The home was clean and systems were in place for the prevention and control of infection.

Recruitment processes were robust and protected people who used the service from the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 July 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received training in a variety of subjects which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. All new staff received an induction.

Regular supervision was carried out which ensured that the standard of care provided by staff was monitored and any problems identified were managed appropriately.

People�s nutritional needs were closely monitored. The food was of a good quality.

Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were, where appropriate, in place.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 July 2016

The service was caring.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and said they were caring.

Staff were patient and spoke to people in a kind and sensitive way.

Staff understood how to respect people�s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 July 2016

The service was responsive.

Care was provided in a way that was responsive to meet the individual needs of people who lived at the home.

Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and �person-centred� and were reviewed regularly to ensure the information was up-to-date.

There were systems in place to enable people to make a complaint about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 July 2016

The service was well led.

The home had a registered manager who was supported by a deputy manager and the home owners.

Staff we spoke with told us the manager was very approachable and supportive and our observations confirmed this.

There was a calm, happy atmosphere in the home and staff worked well together as a team.

Quality assurance processes, such as audits, ensured that standards were monitored regularly.