We carried out a review of the data available to us about Franklin Avenue on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Franklin Avenue, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• The registered manager and staff team were following effective infection control procedures to help manage the COVID-19 outbreak.
• Staff were trained in how to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we observed them using this appropriately.
• Measures were in place for visitors to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. These included being asked for proof of a negative lateral flow test (LFT) and having their temperature taken. All professionals, staff and contractors were asked to provide evidence of having received the full course of the COVID 19 vaccine.
• The registered manager had developed a series of one-page guidelines to support staff, visitors and contractors to understand and comply with the measures in place to support safe visits to the service and the people who live there.
• The provider understood and followed current guidance on visiting both during the outbreak and when there was not an outbreak.
• Staff had supported people who used the service to understand the need for PPE and social distancing as far as possible. They had supported people to feel at ease with staff wearing PPE by creating games and fun activities to help reduce anxiety.
• The service looked clean and smelled fresh. Staff followed cleaning schedules which were monitored by the registered manager. Additional cleaning of highly used areas of the home was carried out frequently throughout the day.
• People who were COVID positive had been supported to isolate in their rooms in line with guidance. Care was organised well to ensure people who had tested positive received effective care and were not isolated, while also ensuring other people were not put at risk of infection.
• All staff were fully vaccinated and complied with testing in line with current guidance.
At the last inspection in November 2015, the home was rated Good. During this inspection, which took place on 14 December 2017, we found the home remained Good.
Why the home is still rated Good:
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and knew how to keep people safe. Processes were also in place to ensure risks to people were managed safely.
There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The provider carried out checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable and safe to work at the home.
People received their medicines when they needed them. Systems were in place to ensure people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.
There was evidence that the home responded in an open and transparent way when things went wrong, so that lessons could be learnt and improvements made.
People received care and support that promoted a good quality of life and was delivered in line with current legislation and standards. Staff received training to ensure they had the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to have enough food and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Risks to people with complex eating and drinking needs were being managed appropriately.
Staff worked with other external teams and services to ensure people received effective care, support and treatment. People had access to healthcare services, and received appropriate support with their on-going healthcare needs.
The building provided people with sufficient accessible space and modified equipment to meet their needs.
The home acted in line with legislation and guidance regarding seeking people’s consent. People were supported to make their own decisions as far as possible.
Staff provided care and support in a kind and compassionate way. People were encouraged to make decisions about their daily routines. Arrangements were in place to ensure appropriate independent support was provided for more complex decisions.
People’s privacy, dignity, and independence was respected and promoted.
People received personalised care and they were given regular opportunities to participate in meaningful activities, both in and out of the home.
Arrangements were in place for people to raise any concerns or complaints they might have about the home. These were responded to in a positive way, in order to improve the quality of service provided.
Despite the fact no one living at the home was in receipt of end of life care, there were plans to ensure staff understood people’s individual preferences and wishes. So if the need arose, staff would be prepared and able to carry out those wishes.
There was strong leadership at the home which resulted in people receiving high quality and person centred care. The registered manager ensured that staff understood their legal responsibilities and accountability. This approach had created a positive culture that was open, inclusive and empowering for the people living there. People were actively involved in how the home was run and staff adapted processes to ensure this was done in a meaningful way.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to drive continuous improvement. The registered manager worked in partnership with key organisations and agencies for the benefit of people living at the home.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 12 and 16 November 2015 and was unannounced. When we last inspected the home in November 2013 we found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements in the areas that we looked at.
Franklin Avenue provides accommodation and support for up to six people who have a learning disability or physical disability. At the time of this inspection there were five people living at the home.
The home has 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.
People were safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them. Their medicines were administered safely and they were supported to access other healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being. People were given a choice of nutritious food and drink throughout the day and were supported to maintain their interests and hobbies. They were supported effectively and encouraged to maintain their independence. They were aware of the provider’s complaints system and information about this and other aspects of the service was available in an easy read format. People were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and had access to an advocacy service.
There were sufficient, skilled staff to support people at all times, however the recruitment processes in place were not robust. Staff were well trained and understood and complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the development of the service and understood the provider’s visions and values.
There was an effective quality assurance system in place.
Care plans were well documented to promote continuity of care. Staff we spoke with were clear about the needs of the people they were caring for, and accurately reflected the care described in their care plans.
We found that people living in the home received their prescribed medication when they needed it and in a way that suited them.
The premises was well maintained to ensure the home remained safe for people using the service, staff and visitors.
There were enough staff on duty with the right knowledge, experience and skills to meet people's needs.
Suitable arrangements were in place to address people's comments and complaints, and ensure they were listened to.
We observed that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured that their individual needs were met. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and people were at ease in the company of the staff supporting them. The staff were friendly and polite in their approach and interacted confidently with people.
We noted that people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their support and how they spent their time. Some people were out at day centres at the time of our visit, and those who were at home were involved in one to one activities of their choice, such as sessions in the sensory room.
The provider had systems in place to ensure people were involved in the quality monitoring processes for this service. People were encouraged to share their views and opinions to help improve the standard of care provision.