You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 September 2018

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Friston House on 24 July 2018. The team inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service well led, is the service safe?

No risks, concerns or significant improvement were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

Friston House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Friston House provides accommodation, residential and nursing care for up to 81 older people. The home comprises of three units. The main building has two floors and accommodates people with residential needs with early onset dementia on the ground floor; and people with nursing needs on the first floor. There is a separate 'Memory Lane Unit' for people who live with dementia and nursing care needs.

On the day of our inspection there were 78 people living at the home. People had a variety of complex needs including people with mental health and physical health needs and people living with dementia. Some people had limited mobility, pressures ulcers and some people received care in bed.

The service had a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager became registered on the day before we inspected the service. They had previously been in post as the peripatetic general manager.

At the last inspection on 03 and 06 October 2017 the service was rated Good overall and Requires improvement in Responsive. We had made a recommendation in the Responsive domain that registered person's reviewed activities following good practice guidance to ensure people have access to activities and hobbies to meet their needs.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. The provider continued to operate a safe and robust recruitment and selection procedure to make sure staff were suitable and safe to work with people. One recruitment record and some maintenance records were not always clear or complete.

Risks were appropriately assessed and mitigated to ensure people were safe. People’s pressure areas had been appropriately recorded and treated. Equipment was in place to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. Records evidenced that people had received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective systems were in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Accidents and incident were monitored and lessons were learned when things went wrong to reduce the risk of it happening again.

People and their relatives were actively involved in improving the service, they completed feedback surveys and had meetings.

The service was clean and tidy. Staff used personal protective equipment to keep themselves and people safe from the risks of infection. The service had been appropriately maintained.

Staff knew what they should do to identify and raise safeguarding concerns. The registered manager knew their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe from harm.

Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.

The management team had built strong links with other local registered managers and providers who they gained support and advice from. The management t

Inspection areas



Updated 5 September 2018

The service remains safe.



Updated 6 December 2017

The service was effective.

Most staff had attended training they needed, training was on going. Staff received supervision and said they were supported in their role. Nursing staff received appropriate support and clinical supervision.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people�s freedom was restricted Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards were in place.

Meals and mealtimes promoted people�s wellbeing. People had choices of food at each meal time which met their likes, needs and expectations. People with specialist diets had been catered for.

People received medical care from healthcare professionals when they needed it.



Updated 6 December 2017

The service was caring.

People received consistent care and support from staff they knew very well. Staff were aware of people's personal preferences and life histories.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People's privacy and dignity were maintained whilst promoting people's independence.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their relatives.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

Activities were not always person centred to meet people�s needs in order to keep them stimulated.

People�s care plans contained important information about them and what they needed help with. People�s care had been reviewed regularly.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints. The complaints policy was prominently displayed in the home. People and relatives had opportunities to feedback about the service through surveys and meetings.



Updated 5 September 2018

The service remains well led.