Franklin House

The service is managed by Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd, a private organisation providing health and adult social care across the United Kingdom.

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were suitable systems for visitors to the home to minimise the risks of spreading infection.

The staff supported people to contact families and friends using video calls, phone calls and mobile phone applications.

Staff received training relating to COVID-19, infection control and wearing PPE (personal protective equipment). There was an assigned clinical lead who was a qualified trainer. They assessed staff competencies and made sure they were following procedures to prevent and control the spread of infection.

There was a suitable regime of COVID-19 testing for people living at the home and staff.

There were a range of policies and procedures which had been reviewed and updated since the pandemic started. These included contingency plans for managing adverse events, such as staff shortages and outbreaks of COVID-19. The registered manager and other senior staff carried out regular audit of infection control and cleanliness.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Franklin House is a nursing home for people over the age of 65 years. The home caters for people who need care at the end of their lives, people with general nursing needs, people living with the experience of dementia and people who need short stay accommodation. At the time of the inspection 61 people were living at the service.

The service is managed by Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd, a private organisation providing health and adult social care across the United Kingdom.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were happy living at the service. They felt well supported and cared for. They said that the staff treated them with kindness and respect. Their needs were being met and they felt involved in their care. People's relatives were also happy with the service. They said they were well informed and able to contribute their views on how people were cared for.

The staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. They felt well supported and had the training and information they needed to provide effective care. They took part in regular meetings and were able to share their views about the service and improvements they felt were needed. There were systems in place to make sure only suitable staff were employed.

The provider employed staff who organised, planned and facilitated a range of different leisure activities involving children and adults from the community. The staff had developed comprehensive life story books for each person which included information and photographs from their past, as well as documenting the things they had done since moving to the service. All of the staff, as well as people's friends and families, used these books to encourage conversations.

The provider aimed that people should remain in the service for the end of their lives if this was their wish. They provided exceptional care, pain relief and comfort for people at this time, as well as supporting people's families.

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 safely cared for. Risks to their safety and well being were assessed and planned for. They received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. The premises and equipment were safe, clean and regularly checked to make sure they stayed so. The provider operated effective systems for safeguarding people from abuse, reporting accidents and incidents and dealing with complaints.

People were able to make choices about the food they ate and drank. The staff made sure they stayed hydrated. Individual dietary needs were catered for and the staff monitored people's weight to make sure they identified changes to this. People had access to external healthcare professionals and the staff liaised with these professionals, so people's healthcare needs could be met.

The registered manager was experienced and knew the service and individual people who lived there well. They worked closely with the staff and monitored all aspects of the service. The provider's senior management team regularly visited the service. The provider had taken action where improvements were needed. They gathered feedback from people using the service, staff and other stakeholders and acted on this feedback to improve the service.

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 10 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we 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 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 8 and 9 December 2015, the service was rated Good. However, we made one requirement because people were not always treated with dignity and respect.

At this inspection, on 31 January 2017, we found the service remained Good. The requirement had been met and the provider had taken action to ensure people were always treated with dignity and respect.

The service met all the fundamental standards which we inspected.

People liked living at the home. They felt they were well cared for and the staff were kind, caring and met their needs. They felt safe. People and their relatives felt involved in planning their own care and this reflected their individual needs. There were enough things for people to do which met their social and leisure needs. They received medicines when they needed them and had access to a range of health services. People liked the food and were able to make choices about this.

People felt the service was well managed. They regularly saw the manager and senior staff and knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about anything. Relatives and other visitors were made welcome and felt listened to and valued.

The staff were happy working at the service. They were well supported and had the training and information they needed to care for people. There were appropriate procedures for safe recruitment and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The staff had a good knowledge about how to keep people safe, protect them from abuse, promote choice and treat people with respect and dignity.

There were good systems for managing the service and for monitoring quality. People living at the home, staff and visitors were able to give their feedback and meet with the manager to discuss the service. There were good systems of communication between the staff and different departments so that all the staff knew how to meet the needs of people who lived there. There were regular audits of all aspects of the service and clear action had been taken when any problems were identified. The external professionals who worked with the provider gave positive feedback about the way in which the service was run.

The inspection took place on 8 and 9 December 2015 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of the service was 17 July 2014 where we found there were no breaches of Regulation.

Franklin House is a nursing home for up to 66 older people managed by Care UK Community Partnerships Limited. At the time of the inspection 63 people were living at the service. Some people were living with dementia, others had general nursing needs and some people were being cared for at the end of their lives.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found one breach of the Regulations. We witnessed a number of interactions where the staff did not treat people with respect. However, the majority of staff were kind and caring towards people. People living at the home and their visitors told us the staff were caring and they had positive relationships with them.

People’s privacy was respected.

Risks to people’s well-being were identified, assessed and managed.

There were appropriate procedures to keep people safe and the staff were aware of these.

People received their medicines in a safe way which met their needs.

There were enough staff employed and the procedures to recruit them were suitable.

The environment was safely maintained and clean.

People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed and their consent to care and treatment was recorded.

The staff had the training and support they needed to care for people and meet their needs.

The environment had been adapted to include features which added interest and helped orientate the people living there.

People’s healthcare needs had been assessed, monitored and met.

People were offered a variety of freshly prepared food. Their individual nutritional needs had been assessed and care was provided to meet these.

People’s privacy was respected.

People’s care was assessed and planned to meet their individual needs.

There was a programme of organised social activities and resources available for people to entertain themselves if they wished to use these.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure and people felt able to raise concerns.

People living at the home and the staff felt there was a positive culture at the home. They found the manager approachable.

People were given opportunities to contribute their views to the way in which the service was run.

There was an effective system of audits and monitoring to ensure people’s needs were safely met, risks were managed and the service was continuingly improving.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. People were given the support they needed to manage their medicines. The building was safe and free from hazards. There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. People had their needs and risks to their wellbeing assessed.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. People's needs were assessed, recorded and monitored. The staff knew about the individuals they were caring for. People were happy living at the home and felt their needs were being met.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. The staff were kind and polite towards people. People told us they were comfortable and well cared for.

Is the service responsive?

.

The service was responsive. Where people had an identified need this had been recorded and the staff made sure these were met. When people had developed a wound or had an accident, this had been appropriately assessed and action taken to reduce the risks of this happening again.

Is the service well-led?

There was an experienced manager in post who knew the needs of the service. There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability in the staff team. The staff were well supported and trained. There were systems to assess the quality of the service and to identify and manage risks.