CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Franklyn Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that fire safety actions had been completed, medicines were safely managed, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training and regular supervision. People had care plans, health action plans and support with food, healthcare, exercise and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the rating from the previous inspection was used.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the rating from the previous inspection was used.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved its audits, record keeping and confidentiality arrangements. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and care.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 January 2023. One inspector reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records, spoke with people, staff and the manager, and received feedback from a relative.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that fire safety, medicines management, staff training, supervision and quality checks had improved since the previous inspection.
People were supported with choices, personalised care, activities, healthcare and community involvement. The home supported four adults with learning disabilities and had space for four people.
This inspection did not assess Caring or Responsive. Those ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall Good rating.
Fire safety improved
The fire safety deficiencies identified after the previous inspection had been addressed. Regular checks and personalised emergency evacuation plans were in place.
“At this inspection we saw evidence that the LFB were satisfied that the required fire safety improvements had been met.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicines records and stock counts were checked. Staff, including regular agency staff, had training and competency checks.
“People's prescribed medicines were safely stored and managed. Staff had completed medicines administration records correctly.” from the report
Personalised support
People had up-to-date care plans and were offered choices about activities, food and their daily plans. Staff supported people to take part in community activities.
“People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff received induction, relevant training and regular supervision. Training included learning disabilities, autism, medicines, safeguarding and dignity in care.
“All staff, including regular agency staff received regular supervision from the registered manager.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
The home had introduced wider checks and an electronic care monitoring system. Confidential records were stored securely.
“The provider had developed their quality assurance systems to ensure regular monitoring of a wide range of safety, care and staffing issues and care needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that the fire safety improvements and personal emergency evacuation plans remain up to date?
- 02How are medicines stock counts, administration records and staff competency checks kept up to date?
- 03How do you make sure regular agency staff continue to know my relative's needs and preferences?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in developing and reviewing their care plan?
- 05What checks do you use to identify missed records or actions through the electronic care monitoring system?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious gaps in fire safety, medicines, staff support and management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a family member and an external professional. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions, supported to stay healthy and encouraged to build independence. Staff knew people well and helped them take part in activities, work and volunteering.
However, inspectors found important safety and management problems. Fire arrangements were not adequate, medicines records were not reliable enough, and there was not enough evidence that agency staff had the right training and supervision. Records were also not always stored securely.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. These three areas had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published on 24 July 2017.
Kind and respectful support
People appeared comfortable with staff and were treated with dignity during personal care. Staff encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People were supported to live a healthy and dignified life.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, routines and interests. People and families were involved in planning and reviewing support.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose meals and activities and were supported to develop skills. They attended community centres and took part in volunteering or work.
“People using the service attended day community centres and volunteered or worked in the community.” from the report
Continuity of staff
The same staff supported people regularly, helping them to know each other well. Inspectors found staff understood people's communication needs.
“There was a continuity of care. The same staff supported people daily and this helped development of positive, friendly relationships between people and the staff.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousThe home did not have adequate fire safety arrangements. Evacuation plans were not personalised and there was no evidence that effective fire checks and drills had taken place.
“The service did not have adequate fire safety arrangements in place to ensure people were supported appropriately in case of fire.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine cycles were unclear, stock counts had not been completed and some dose changes were recorded confusingly. The home could not always show that medicines had been given as prescribed.
“Systems relating to the management of medicines were not robust enough to demonstrate people were fully protected from unsafe use of medicines.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousThe home could not evidence that all agency staff had suitable training or regular supervision. This meant it could not demonstrate that staff had the skills and support needed for their roles.
“The lack of sufficient records in relation to supervision and staff training meant that the provider could not evidence all staff employed by the service had appropriate support, supervision and appraisal” from the report
Management checks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify the fire, medicines, training and supervision problems found by inspectors. This reduced assurance that risks were being managed properly.
“The quality and safety of the service provided were not monitored effectively.” from the report
Secure records
needs fixingCare and staff records were kept in the communal lounge rather than in a locked cabinet. They could therefore be accessed easily by visitors.
“People's care documentation (care plans, daily care notes and MARs) and staff supervision records were stored in the communal lounge and not in a lockable cabinet.” from the report
Easy-read information
minorPeople did not have easy-read or pictorial information explaining how to complain or report abuse. Inspectors recommended that the provider consider the Accessible Information Standard.
“We noted there was no easy read, pictorial information at the service on how to make a complaint and a safeguarding guide to how to understand and report abuse.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to the fire risk assessment, personalised evacuation plans, fire checks and fire drills?
- 02How do you now check medicines stock against the records, and how are medicine changes recorded?
- 03How do you confirm that every agency worker has completed the training needed to support people with learning disabilities and autism?
- 04How often do staff receive individual supervision, and where can we see the records?
- 05How are care, medicines and staff records now kept securely and checked by management?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the three Requires Improvement areas had previously been rated Good in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2020 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 Franklyn Lodge
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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 Brent
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.