You are here

Archived: Franklin House Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 June 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 29/04/2014

During a routine inspection

Franklin House is a privately owned care home. The home provides accommodation and care for up to 38 people and was fully occupied on the day of our inspection. Accommodation is provided on one level, with an enclosed inner courtyard. The home is close to Oldham town centre. The majority of people living at Franklin House have some level of confusion or dementia type illness.

The manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2013 following her appointment. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

We found the location was not meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s human rights were therefore not properly recognised, respected and promoted. Whilst senior staff had undertaken training in DoLS other staff had not and when spoken with did not understand their responsibilities so that people rights were promoted and protected. This meant there had been a breach of the relevant regulation under the Health and Social Care Act (2012).  

We looked at the care records for people who lived at Franklin House. Care plans were reviewed however not all the information was transferred to the care plan reflecting the current and changing needs of people. Risk assessments needed expanding upon so that staff knew clearly how to support people so they were kept safe. Without such information people were at risk of not receiving the care and supported they needed. This meant there had been a breach of the relevant regulation under the Health and Social Care Act (2012).  

The manager carried out regular monitoring of the accommodation and care provided to check that people were kept safe and received a good standard of care and support. However some systems were not as effective as they should have been so that where improvements were needed, these were identified and acted upon.  This meant there had been a breach of the relevant regulation under the Health and Social Care Act (2012).  

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when offering personal care and support. We heard staff addressed people by their preferred name and were heard explaining to people and asking their permission before carrying out any intervention. Interactions between people and staff were kind and compassionate.

Routines were relaxed, with people spending their time as they chose. Activities were made available providing variety to people’s day.  We saw some people were provided with less opportunity than others due to their ability to join in.

We found that relevant information and checks were carried out when recruiting new staff.

Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met. People were provided with a choice of suitable healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional and cultural needs were met. The service worked closely with health care professionals, such as dieticians, so people’s current and changing needs could be met.

Staff spoke positively about working at Franklin House and the support they received from the manager. We were told and saw records to show that staff received on-going training to assist them in delivering the care people needed.

People living at the home were confident they were listened to and the manager would act on their comments. Some people were not however aware how they could raise concerns should they need to.

Inspection carried out on 9 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We looked at the care records held for four people living at the home. It was clear that people, and their relatives if appropriate, had been involved in planning for their care. Care plans were person centred and individual preferences were noted. Throughout our inspection we heard staff speaking with people who lived at the home in warm, friendly and polite manner. People were treated with consideration and respect.

One person living at the home told us they were well looked after and always received “lovely food”. Another described their lunch on the day of our inspection as “very tasty indeed”.

In response to a recent satisfaction survey one relative commented “Many improvements have been made in the décor and carpeting and these appear to be continuing. The standard of care, which is very good, is most important and from what I’ve seen on our visits [over several years] staff on the whole are extremely patient, caring and friendly which is a credit to them”.

The provider had a system in place to support staff through individual supervision sessions and appraisal. Staff confirmed that they felt supported in carrying out their role and that the training available to them was adequate to meet their needs.

We saw that the provider carried out an annual survey of people living at the home, visitors and staff to obtain feedback on the quality of service provided.

Inspection carried out on 6 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During this unannounced visit we spoke in private with six visitors, three people who used the service and three members of staff. We also spoke with the manager and one of the owners.

All visitors and people who used the service spoke very positively about the care provided. Comments about the staff included "[they are] really marvellous", "the care is excellent", "always been very friendly" and "I can't fault the staff who have been absolutely fantastic".

Each person had an individual plan of care that was based on a variety of assessments which were regularly reviewed and if necessary updated. People were involved in discussions and decisions about the best way to meet their needs.

The building appeared to be clean, tidy and well maintained. People spoke positively about their accommodation.

The number of staff who were on duty was based on an assessment of the needs and dependency of the people living at the home at any given time. People told us there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty.

The home had a complaints procedure and people who we spoke with were confident that any complaint they had would be dealt with appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 21 February 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit to Franklin House we talked with some visitors to the home and some people who used the service. They all spoke positively about their experiences of the care provided by the staff team.

People told us they were able to influence the way in which their care needs were met and staff responded to requests for assistance in a timely way. Comments included "wonderful staff, if you ask they don't hesitate they just do it"; "staff treat you nicely, see that you're all right. If you want any thing they'll get it for us." One visitor said to us "no matter how busy staff are they always have a smile."

People also told us that staff were respectful towards them and that their dignity was well maintained. People who used the service, who we asked, told us that they felt safe at Franklin House. Similarly, visitors who we asked believed that their relatives were safe living at the home. One person commented that in their experience, there was "never a funny atmosphere" at the home.

Everybody who we asked said that they were confident that they could make a complaint if necessary and that staff would take notice of anything they had to say. One visitor said to us that they felt they were definitely listened to and "[I have] never felt a nuisance if wanting to discuss something."

We asked people who we spoke with what was the best thing about Franklin House. Comments included "the people who work here"; "the atmosphere, the love and care and attention they give to the patients"; "everybody's very friendly nothing is too much trouble". We asked people who used the service the same question and their comments included "I know I can depend on someone"; "everything" and "you meet all different kinds people".