Frenchay House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People and relatives were positive about staff and felt they were caring and kind. We saw staff being respectful, warm and kind to people at Frenchay House. They got to know people and treated them as individuals. However, when staff were busy it was difficult for them to respond to people’s needs immediately or effectively.

People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with family and friends and there were links with the local community. Most people and relatives said they would like there to be more activities at the service.

Professionals told us some staff were very good at their jobs and passionate about the service. They felt other staff still needed further training or support.

The management team told us they were increasing communication with relatives to involve them in their family member’s care and decision making.

People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with family and friends and there were links with the local community. Most people and relatives said they would like there to be more activities at the service.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Professionals raised concerns about how well some staff supported people. One professional said, “Some of the staff I have worked with presented as distracted or completely unaware of other members of staff and service users themselves. Some staff are evidentially passionate about their roles and genuinely care for the people they are supporting...but, unfortunately, this cannot be said for all staff.” At times the interactions between staff and people who lived at the service were task orientated or did not fully meet people’s needs.

However, people were positive about staff and felt they were caring and kind. Comments included, “The staff are brilliant”, “Staff are thoughtful and considerate” and “The staff are really lovely, they try their best.”

Staff we spoke with were caring and spoke about people in respectful ways. We observed some staff showing great kindness, warmth and affection to people who lived at Frenchay House. Other staff were still developing relationships with people because they had recently started working at the service.

We saw people being treated with dignity, respect and kindness. For example, they were given reassurance and time to respond and were treated with compassion.

Staff treated people as individuals. Their needs and preferences were understood and reflected in their care, treatment and support.This was more difficult for staff to achieve with people who were only staying at Frenchay House for a short period of time.

Staff understood people's personal, cultural, social and religious needs, and these were documented in care records.

Some people and relatives told us they did not always understand or feel involved in their care. Additional information leaflets had recently been introduced to improve people’s understanding of their rights and choices relating to their care and support. The management team told us they were increasing communication with relatives to involve them in their family member’s care and decision making.

People and relatives told us they there were not always enough meaningful activities for people. Although they were complimentary about the staff who provided activities, comments included, “There are very few activities” and “What could be improved is to have more entertainment.” When we visited the service, staff who were employed to provide activities were not working and other staff did not have time during their shift to cover this. However, we saw evidence of a variety of activities and events which had been provided in recent months. This included regular physical, music, reminiscence and self-care activities, as well as a wide range of events and celebrations being observed.

People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with family and friends and there were links with the local community. Some people were happy with the amount of time they were able to go out to local shops or on trips, but others told us they wanted to be able to go out for a walk or have fresh air in the gardens more often. Friends and family were able to visit the service without restrictions.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. When staff were busy, they didn’t always have time to anticipate or respond to people immediately. For example, although staff noticed when someone was becoming upset, they were unable to take time away from another task to offer support or reassurance straight away.

A professional told us that, in a crisis situation they had found staff to be, “Flustered and unsure of how to respond” and noted that this response did not enable them to effectively meet people’s needs or reduce discomfort or distress.

The management team told us they listened to people’s views and wishes and were taking steps to ensure these were better understood and met where possible.The management team told us they listened to people’s views and wishes and were taking steps to ensure these were better understood and met where possible. This included a structured staff allocation system, discussions in staff meetings and management staff increasing their presence around the home.

Some people expressed emotion, discomfort or pain in different ways. Experienced staff understood this, and we saw them sharing their knowledge with newer staff.

Staff gave us mixed feedback about how well they felt supported to do their job. Some staff did not feel the organisation was inclusive or actively listened and engaged with them. However, others were positive about working for the provider and service.

A staff survey had been completed in April 2024. There had been a number of changes in the service since then. However, in response to most of the questions asked in the survey, around 60% of staff were positive overall, and 40% gave more negative feedback. The staff responses led to Frenchay House achieving an overall rating of 3.7 out of 5 stars in the survey.

The management team told us they cared about and promoted staff wellbeing. For example, the provider had recently improved payments for staff attending training, there was an employee assistance programme, and a counsellor provided individual support and guidance. The provider had recently provided new uniforms for all staff which were more practical, comfortable and were made from environmentally sustainable products. The provider recognised the value of a diverse workforce, and their policies supported this.