CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Franklyn Lodge The Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines and risks were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, food, drink and care needs were supported. However, records did not clearly show that all staff training was complete and up to date.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's communication needs and supported them to express choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records reflected people's needs and preferences. Inspectors were not assured that activities always matched people's interests or helped them develop skills and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and improved quality checks. The previous breach relating to governance had been resolved, although the report made recommendations about training and activities.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improved management, but staff training records and meaningful activities needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 September 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, family members, staff and a care professional, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment records and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe and well treated. Medicines, risk assessments, infection control, staffing and personalised care were generally managed well.
Inspectors found some gaps in records showing whether staff had completed training. They also found limited evidence that activities helped people develop skills or build social relationships. The service received two recommendations, but no current regulatory breach was identified.
Safe medicines and risk management
People received medicines as prescribed, and inspectors found no gaps in the medicine records they checked. Individual risk assessments gave staff guidance on keeping people safe.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff understood people's communication needs, privacy, dignity and preferences.
“People were well treated and supported. They had good relationships with staff.” from the report
Consistent staff team
The home had sufficient permanent staff to cover planned and unplanned absences. Regular staff and key workers helped provide continuity of care.
“People were supported by a staff team which included regular consistent staff which helped ensure people received continuity of care.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced regular audits covering areas such as medicines, safety, maintenance and cleanliness. Inspectors said the earlier governance breach had been resolved.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.” from the report
Training records were unclear
needs fixingThe records did not clearly show whether all staff had completed relevant training or refresher training. Training certificates did not always match the dates on the training record.
“However, we identified that there were some gaps where it was not evident whether staff had completed relevant training.” from the report
Activities may not build skills
needs fixingInspectors were not assured that activities reflected people's individual interests. There was limited evidence that people were supported to try new activities, develop skills or build relationships in the community.
“There was a lack of evidence that people were supported by staff to try new activities and develop their individual skills.” from the report
Medicine competency records lacked detail
minorThe home said staff competency was checked, but the records did not clearly explain how the assessment had been carried out. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“The detail recorded was limited. We raised this with the registered manager who advised that they would review this” from the report
Some DoLS authorisations had expired
needs fixingInspectors found that some authorisations had expired. The home had chased the relevant body and was keeping a record of this.
“We noted that some DoLS authorisations had expired and queried this with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What training and refresher training has each staff member completed since the inspection, and how do you check that records are accurate?
- 02How are medicine competency assessments recorded, and what extra detail has been added since the inspection?
- 03What activities are available for my relative based on their interests, skills and communication needs?
- 04How do you support people to try new activities, develop skills and maintain relationships in the community?
- 05What is the current position on any expired DoLS authorisations?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; nobody was receiving end-of-life care at the time, so that area was not tested in practice. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in safety checks and quality monitoring.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 10 September 2019. One inspector spoke with staff, the acting manager, healthcare professionals and a relative. The inspector also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines records, safety records and quality checks.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities at home and in the community. The home was clean, staffing levels were adequate, and people's health, diet and communication needs were generally well supported.
However, inspectors found several safety and management gaps. These included unexplained gaps in one medicines record, missing personal emergency evacuation plans, an absent catheter risk assessment and criminal record checks that had not been renewed as the home's policy required. The quality checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. The home had held a Requires Improvement rating for the last three consecutive inspections.
Respectful care
Staff were observed treating people warmly and respectfully. They reassured people when they became unsettled and supported them safely during activities.
“On the day of the inspection, we observed positive interaction between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, cultural and religious needs. Staff used pictures, objects and other individual communication methods.
“People received personalised care and support.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. The home arranged healthcare appointments and worked with professionals when people's needs changed.
“Training included administration of medicines, food hygiene, infection control, autism, learning disabilities and safeguarding, fire safety awareness and positive behavioural support.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to do activities based on their interests, including college, day centres, shopping, walks and holidays. Staff also supported everyday independence.
“There was a programme of specific activities for each person depending on their interests.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingOne medicines administration record had four unexplained gaps for August 2019. The manager said the person had been in hospital and corrected the record after the inspection.
“We noted that a medicines administration records (MAR) contained four unexplained gaps for August 2019.” from the report
Incomplete safety information
seriousOne person with a urinary catheter did not have a written risk assessment. Two people's emergency evacuation plans were also not kept at the home during the visit.
“One person who had a urinary catheter did not have a written risk assessment although the acting manager was aware of some of the potential risks.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
seriousOnly two of four personal emergency evacuation plans were available in the home at the inspection. The report says these plans needed to be there so staff knew what to do in an emergency.
“PEEPs needed to be in the home at all times so that staff are aware of action to take in an emergency.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's audits had not identified the medicines, risk assessment, evacuation plan and staff check problems. The home had also not kept recent audit reports available on site.
“The provider had failed to have effective quality assurance systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Out-of-date staff checks
needs fixingThree staff members had criminal record disclosures that were more than five years old, although the home's policy said these should be renewed every three years.
“We noted that three staff had criminal record disclosures which were carried out over five years ago.” from the report
- 01Have all medicines administration records been checked for unexplained gaps, and how are staff told what to do when someone is in hospital?
- 02Are every resident's personal emergency evacuation plans now kept in the home and reviewed when needs change?
- 03Does each person with a catheter or other health risk now have a written risk assessment that staff can follow?
- 04How does the current quality monitoring system make sure problems are found and corrected promptly?
- 05Have all required staff criminal record checks been renewed in line with the home's three-year policy?
This was a planned unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the CQC looking at both the care provided and the home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2019 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 The Bungalow
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
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.