Franklin House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment of the service with this registered provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 supported staff to learn from things that went wrong. Incidents, accidents and complaints were reported, investigated and resolved.. These were discussed with staff to help improve practice. When needed, further action was taken. This included retraining staff and updating care plans or risk assessments. A care worker told us, “If I saw anything concerning, I would report it straight away. Our manager takes things very seriously. We have training and we learn from mistakes.”

The provider organised reflective practice sessions for staff. They used these to discuss their actions and lessons learnt following accidents or incidents.

The provider had systems to ensure safe transitions and pathways. They carried out pre-admission assessments, involving the person, their family and professionals involved in their care. Relatives told us the transition to the service had been positive. A relative commented, “We thought [person] would not settle in because [they] absolutely did not want to go into a home. But [they] love it; and the move went well.”

Some people stayed at the home for short periods when recovering from a hospital stay or when their family carers were away. Staff worked closely to ensure people had a safe stay at the service and a good transition back home at the end of their stay.

Staff shared written information with external healthcare teams to ensure everyone involved in people’s care understood about their needs. This helped make sure people were well cared for when they needed to visit hospital.

The provider had systems to safeguard people from abuse. Staff had training in these and demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise and report abuse. People and their relatives felt they were safely cared for. Staff were able to explain about safeguarding procedures.

Managers and staff worked with the local authority to report, investigate and respond to allegations of abuse.

The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

Staff assessed the risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. However, there was not always enough personalised information about people within these assessments or risk management plans. We discussed this with the registered manager who undertook and agreed to make the required updates and changes.

Risk assessments were updated following falls, accidents and changes in people’s conditions. Staff had a good understanding about people’s needs and how to mitigate risks.

Staff had training to understand about safe care. We observed staff supporting people to eat and to move around the home safely.

People lived in a safe and well-maintained environment. Staff carried out regular safety checks, including checking equipment and fire safety. The home was appropriately ventilated and lit. People had equipment which met their needs. This included specialist beds and chairs. There was an accessible and well-maintained garden and a number of different communal spaces.

People and relatives told us they liked the environment. A person explained, “The maintenance staff are excellent. They will sort any problem within a couple of hours.”

The building had been decorated, furnished and equipped in line with best practice for supporting people living with dementia. For example, areas where people’s sensory needs could be met and reminiscence themed rooms. People and relatives told us they liked this aspect of the service, and it was important for their wellbeing.

There were enough suitable staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People told us they did not have to wait for care. They thought the staff were good at looking after them. Their comments included, “[Staff] are brilliant. I can’t fault them” and “Staff are excellent, and we are well looked after here.”

Staff told us there were enough of them and they did not feel rushed in their jobs.

There were appropriate procedures for recruiting staff. These included checks on their suitability, competencies and skills. New staff were required to complete an induction, shadowing experienced workers and undertaking a range of training. The provider ensured staff received regular training updates, supervision and appraisals of their work.

The provider had systems to prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff undertook training in these. Staff were provided with enough personal protective equipment (PPE) and knew how to use this. There were cleaning schedules and regular audits of cleanliness.

People told us the home was kept clean, and they were happy with the laundry service. We saw the home was clean and hygienic on the day of our visit.

Improvements were needed to some records used for managing medicines. Some people were prescribed medicines to be administered on a when-required (PRN) basis. Information was in place in the form of PRN protocols. However, these protocols were not always detailed enough. For example, they did not always explain how people who could not use words to communicate expressed pain. Following our visit to the service, the registered manager liaised with the GP and other professionals and made improvements to these documents. They sent us evidence of this.

Staff did not always quality check the blood glucose monitors as per the manufacturer’s instructions. This meant the readings taken using these meters may not have been accurate. However, people’s blood sugar levels had been well maintained, and no one had come to harm because of this. Staff were familiar with the symptoms of high and low blood sugar and monitored people’s wellbeing. The registered manager addressed the concern about the monitors with staff and took action to ensure these checks would take place in the future.

Records of medicines administration and our observations showed that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored securely and at the required temperatures.

Staff received training and were competency assessed to handle medicines safely. Staff carried out audits to identify gaps and make improvements. There was a process to report and investigate errors and incidents. In addition, there was a process in place to receive and act on alerts and national guidance about medicines.