CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Franklin Avenue
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing infection outbreaks and facilitating visits in line with guidance. They also found the home clean and said cleaning of highly used areas took place frequently.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not separately inspected or rated in this targeted visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not separately inspected or rated in this targeted visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not separately inspected or rated in this targeted visit.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not separately inspected or rated in this targeted visit.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control measures during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 12 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and asked about staffing pressures. The visit was announced with 18 hours' notice.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff used protective equipment correctly, followed cleaning schedules and supported safe visiting. People who tested positive for COVID-19 were supported to isolate while still receiving care.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas.
Protective equipment
Staff had training in using protective equipment and inspectors saw them using it correctly.
“Staff were trained in how to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we observed them using this appropriately.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were asked for evidence of a negative lateral flow test and had their temperature taken. The home had written guidance to help visitors and contractors follow its safety measures.
“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.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and fresh. Cleaning schedules were monitored, with extra cleaning of frequently used areas during the day.
“The service looked clean and smelled fresh. Staff followed cleaning schedules which were monitored by the registered manager.” from the report
Support during isolation
People who tested positive were supported to stay in their rooms while continuing to receive care. The arrangements aimed to protect other people from infection.
“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.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current arrangements for testing visitors and staff during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02How would my relative be supported if they tested positive and needed to isolate?
- 03How does the home manage staffing pressures during an outbreak?
- 04How often are frequently used areas cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 05What are the home's current ratings from its most recent full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2022 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, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor improvements still planned.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 14 December 2017. One inspector observed care for all six people living at the home, spoke with staff and a relative, and checked care, medicine, staffing and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, had enough suitable staff, received their medicines safely and had access to healthcare.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, communicate in different ways, take part in activities and stay in contact with relatives and friends.
The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in November 2015. The Safe rating had improved to Good, while the other ratings remained Good.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to support people promptly, including at mealtimes. Recruitment checks were completed, and the home tried to use the same agency staff for consistency.
“People were safe and had their needs met because there were sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home used communication passports, picture cards and other aids to help people express themselves and take part in decisions.
“Communication passports were in place for each person; providing person centred information to help staff to support those people who could not easily speak for themselves.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time to respond, offered choices and supported privacy, dignity and independence during everyday care.
“People were continually supported to express their views and to be actively involved in making decisions about their care and daily routines.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to enjoy varied activities based on their interests, both in the home and outside it. This included holidays, clubs, outings, adapted cycling and sensory activities.
“It was evident that they were supported to have active and varied lives, based on their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Involvement in the home
People took part in practical tasks and helped influence activities, menus and furnishings. Staff adapted tasks so people could participate meaningfully.
“People, their relatives, advocates and staff were actively involved in developing the home.” from the report
Stained communal flooring
minorSome communal flooring was heavily stained. Replacement plans were already in place, but the work had not yet been completed at the inspection.
“We did note that some of the communal flooring was heavily stained, but staff and records confirmed that plans were already underway to replace this flooring in the near future.” from the report
Further best-interest work
needs fixingThe home planned further work to record best-interest decisions about people contributing to staff costs during outings and shared costs such as transport and entertainment.
“Further work was planned to ensure best interest decisions were extended to include people contributing to staff costs during outings and shared costs such as transport and entertainment provided at the home.” from the report
Communication aid training
needs fixingStaff were not yet aware how to use one person's electronic communication aid. The manager had asked the speech and language therapy team for help.
“The registered manager showed us an electronic communications aid for one person that staff were currently not aware how to use.” from the report
- 01Has the stained communal flooring now been replaced, and if not, when is this planned?
- 02How will you record best-interest decisions about shared costs and contributions during outings?
- 03How are staff being trained to use the electronic communication aid?
- 04How do you make sure people continue to have enough familiar staff when agency workers are used?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about daily activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2018 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 Franklin Avenue
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Central Bedfordshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.