CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Frank Foster House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always protected from risks linked to fire safety, evacuation plans and staff deployment. Recruitment, safeguarding, medicines and infection control arrangements were found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. No current rating is given in the report.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were kind and protected people's privacy, but inspectors saw staff not always promoting independence and described care as task focused.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. No current rating is given in the report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager understood regulatory duties and encouraged openness, but audits had not identified problems with care records or staff deployment.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks around fire safety, staffing and care, although medicines and involvement were handled well.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 15 February 2023, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, recruitment, medicine and management records. They also continued checking information after the visit.
The home was not always safe or well led. Fire safety actions had not all been completed, some personal emergency evacuation plans did not include stairgates, and staff were not always deployed effectively. Records after a fall were also not completed consistently.
Inspectors found safe recruitment, trained staff giving medicines, protection from abuse, infection control and support for people's involvement in decisions. Caring, safe and well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating changed from Outstanding at the last inspection in 2018 because the other areas were not inspected and the current findings reduced the overall rating.
Safe recruitment
The home completed important recruitment checks before staff started work, including references, right to work checks and criminal record checks.
“The provider had processes in place to recruit staff safely.” from the report
Medicines
Staff giving medicines were trained and their skills were checked. The home used regular audits to monitor medicines.
“Staff administering medicines had received appropriate training and a review of their skills and competences were regularly undertaken.” from the report
People's involvement
People and relatives were involved in decisions, including through monthly meetings. The home created action plans in response to their views.
“People and their relatives were involved in the decision-making process.” from the report
Fire safety and evacuation
seriousActions from fire checks had not all been completed. Storage remained on a landing, and stairgates were not included in all fire risk assessments, evacuation plans or drills.
“The management of risk needs to improve in relation to fire safety and people's personal emergency evacuation plans [PEEPs].” from the report
Staff deployment and mealtimes
seriousStaff were seen together in communal areas while people in their rooms were not always checked regularly. At mealtimes, some people were supported too quickly and staff supported two people at once.
“During mealtimes, we observed staff supporting 2 people at once, rushing people to eat and not allowing sufficient time to finish their mouthful before giving another.” from the report
Promoting independence
needs fixingInspectors saw a person being helped into a wheelchair without being given the time to do as much as possible for themselves, contrary to their care plan.
“Staff did not always promote people's independence.” from the report
Care records and audits
needs fixingRecords of observations after a fall were incomplete and did not always show the actual times care was provided. Audits had not identified this or the staff deployment problem.
“Care notes detailing the observations commenced after a service user had fallen, had not been completed consistently and did not reflect the actual time observations had been provided.” from the report
- 01Have all actions from the latest fire checks been completed, and has storage been removed from the staircase landing?
- 02How have personal emergency evacuation plans been updated to include bedroom stairgates and the extra time needed to use them?
- 03How will staffing levels and staff deployment be monitored so people in their rooms receive regular safety and welfare checks?
- 04How will staff make sure people have enough time to eat safely and are supported to maintain their independence?
- 05What changes have been made to audits so care records after falls and staff deployment problems are identified promptly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not inspected, and the report says the other ratings used the ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Frank Foster House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visitors and new admissions.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 06 May 2021. It checked how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were managed safely, new admissions were tested and isolated, and staff and residents received regular COVID-19 testing. They also found that staff used personal protective equipment and had infection control training.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full quality rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had processes to support visits while following government guidance and reducing infection risks.
“Appropriate and safe processes were in place to facilitate people having visitors at the service in line with the current government guidance.” from the report
Admission arrangements
New residents needed a negative test and a 14-day isolation period before joining the home.
“New admissions to the service required a negative test and 14-day isolation period.” from the report
Testing and infection control
The home arranged regular testing and maintained systems to prevent the spread of infection. Staff used protective equipment and had infection control training.
“The service had introduced and maintained effective systems and processes to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Staff checks
The home checked staff skills in hand hygiene and their knowledge of infection prevention and control.
“The service carried out checks to assess staff competency for hand hygiene and IPC knowledge.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visits currently managed, and what happens if infection levels or government guidance change?
- 03Are staff and residents still tested regularly, and what happens after a positive test?
- 04How are new residents supported during any required isolation period?
- 05How do you check that staff are following hand hygiene and infection control procedures?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report gives no ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Frank Foster House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodCaring: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.