Franklin House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

The last rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider ensured there was a positive, open and inclusive culture at the service. People living there, relatives and staff felt the service was good and would recommend it to others. A relative told us, “The customer service here is excellent. We are so glad we came.” Staff understood and were committed to organisational values. Their comments included, “It makes me proud to see the residents are happy”, “Management really care about both the staff and residents” and “This does not feel like a job. It is about making a real difference in people’s lives.”

The provider employed capable and inclusive leaders. The registered manager was experienced and had a qualification in care management. They had worked at the service for many years. They kept their knowledge and training up to date. People using the service, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and deputy manager. Their comments included, “[The management team] are lovely and very helpful”, “[Registered manager] is a true gent” and “Management are welcoming and very approachable with an open door."

The provider had systems to enable staff and others to speak up if something was wrong. Staff told us they felt confident doing this and were able to describe the procedures for speaking up.

The provider encouraged workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. There was a diverse staff team including staff from different ethnicities. Staff told us this diversity was valued and respected. They were encouraged to celebrate each other’s culture and festivals in special events. Staff and relatives told us about cultural days where staff had worn traditional costumes and prepared food from their home countries.

Staff told us they were supported with flexible working and time off when needed. For example, for caring responsibilities and to complete external qualifications.

The provider had procedures to protect staff rights and to ensure there was no discrimination.

The provider had effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. The management team had already identified improvements were needed to some medicines records and had started to address these before our visit. Managers and staff undertook a range of audits and checks. These led to improvements. There were clear action plans when issues were identified.

Senior managers and the organisation’s quality team regularly visited the service to carry out their own checks.

Managers and staff worked in partnership with others, both within their organisation and externally. The registered manager and a manager from another service worked closely to support each other and offer guidance and mentorship. On the day of our visit, this manager was supporting a piece of work to identify and plan how to meet the needs of 1 person. They explained they were implementing a plan with the staff at Franklin House, and they would return to assess the success of this after a short period of time.

The service worked closely with a local staff recruitment agency by offering their new staff and induction. New staff shadowed staff at Franklin House to gain experience and learn about providing good care. A representative from the staffing agency explained this worked well. They said, “[Franklin House]’s willingness to offer induction and shadow shifts to our newly placed healthcare assistances has made a meaningful impact, not just on their professional development but also on their confidence and readiness to work in the care sector.”

The service also offered placements for students from local colleges as part of their work experience for nursing or health and social care qualifications.

A community matron worked closely with the team assessing people’s needs and discussing these with staff. They helped develop support plans and make referrals to other healthcare teams when needed.

The provider encouraged a learning culture. Managers shared ideas and worked closely with managers from other care homes, the local authority and external professionals. The registered manager explained they had recently visited another service where the chef had innovative ways of promoting hydration. They had obtained recipes which they had shared with their own chef to bring these into Franklin House.

Senior staff had regular meetings to discuss the service, best practice and any risks. They had a good overview of people’s needs. They shared their learning with other staff and encouraged them to attend training, reflective practice and workshops. Staff took on lead roles where they undertook advanced learning and shared this with the team.

The provider shared updates and bulletins with the service about experiences from their other care homes. In particular when something had gone wrong, how this was addressed and how each of the care homes could learn from this. They supported the management team to put in place measures to prevent similar situations.