CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Franklyn Lodge The Farm House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People appeared safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk procedures. However, financial audits were not documented and there was not enough evidence that medicines audits were carried out regularly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices, communication and diets. Staff supported healthcare, nutrition and lawful decision-making, although some training and the training records needed updating.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and supported to communicate, be independent and maintain relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave detailed guidance about people's preferences and communication. People had individual activity timetables, community access and an accessible complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture, with approachable management and good staff teamwork. However, medication and financial checks were not regular or fully documented, and there was no recent evidence of surveys.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks were not always complete.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 22 November 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, incident and management records.
People appeared comfortable with staff. Care was personalised and respectful. Staff supported people with communication, food, healthcare, activities and access to the community. Medicines records showed no unexplained gaps.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because checks on people's finances and medicines were not documented regularly enough. The home was previously rated Good in 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared at ease with staff. Inspectors saw friendly, patient and respectful interactions.
“We observed staff communicated with people in a friendly and respectful way.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans included detailed information about people's communication, routines, preferences and signs of distress. Staff used pictures, gestures and other suitable methods.
“Care support plans included a DisDAT profile.” from the report
Support for activities
People were supported to go out, use the local community, maintain relationships and take part in activities based on their interests.
“Each person in the home had their own activities timetable which was based on their interests.” from the report
Medicines records
Medicines were stored and managed safely. The records checked had no unexplained gaps.
“We examined a sample of MARs for each person in the home and found that these were completed fully with no gaps.” from the report
Positive management culture
Staff described management as approachable and supportive. Inspectors found effective teamwork and an open culture.
“Staff spoke positively about working at the home. They described a positive culture within the home.” from the report
Financial checks were not documented
needs fixingTransactions checked were recorded properly and had no discrepancies, but the home could not show documented audits of people's finances.
“However, there was no documented evidence that the home carried out audits on people's finances.” from the report
Medicines audits were not regular
needs fixingMedicines records were complete, but there was not enough evidence of regular checks between the recorded audits.
“There was however no documented evidence that further checks had been carried out between November 2018 and October 2019” from the report
Communal bathroom needed work
needs fixingThe ground-floor communal bathroom was still in need of renovation after other renovation work had been completed.
“We however noted that the ground floor bathroom was still in need of renovation.” from the report
Some training records needed updating
minorSome staff needed refresher training, and the training matrix did not show all training accurately.
“However, we noted that the matrix was not up to date with all staff training.” from the report
Limited recent feedback evidence
minorThe report found no evidence of surveys since 2017, although residents' meetings and key worker sessions were being used to gather views.
“However, we saw no evidence that any surveys had been carried out since.” from the report
- 01How often are medicines audits now completed, and can you show us the latest records?
- 02How are people's finances checked and independently audited, and how are those checks recorded?
- 03Has the ground-floor communal bathroom now been renovated?
- 04Which staff training or refresher training was outstanding, and is the training matrix now up to date?
- 05How do you now collect and act on feedback from people, relatives and staff?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care, premises, records and management of the home and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff appraisals still outstanding.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 April 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living in the home, staff and a social care professional. They observed care and checked bedrooms, shared areas, records, medicines, staff files and maintenance information.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe and were treated with respect. Risks were assessed, staffing was considered sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. People received support with health, food, activities and daily choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2014, with no breaches then. Inspectors identified some outstanding staff appraisals and a temporary medicines storage arrangement, but found no breaches of regulations at this inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were well treated and felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and risks had been assessed with plans to reduce them.
“Risk assessments had been prepared and these contained guidance for minimising potential risks such as risks associated with smoking, mental health problems, spitting, other antisocial behaviour and self-neglect.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were patient and respectful. They understood how people communicated and took steps to protect privacy, including knocking before entering bedrooms.
“Care workers were patient, respectful and pleasant towards people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health, communication, cultural and religious needs. Activities were arranged around people's interests and included outings, sport and holidays.
“The home provided care which was individualised and person-centred.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits and checks covering areas such as medicines, cleanliness, maintenance, staffing and complaints. Care records were up to date.
“The service had the necessary checks and audits for ensuring quality care.” from the report
Some appraisals were overdue
needs fixingSome staff had not had an appraisal in the previous 12 months. The home said these would be completed soon.
“Some appraisals had not been carried out in the past twelve months.” from the report
Temporary medicines cupboard
needs fixingSome medicines were stored in a temporary locked cupboard because the usual medicines cupboard was full. The home said this arrangement would stop soon after the inspection.
“A temporary locked cupboard was used to store some medicines.” from the report
Minor environment work
minorInspectors noted a lack of flowers in the garden and that some lounge areas needed repainting. The home said improvements were planned or already under way.
“Some areas of the lounge were in need of repainting.” from the report
- 01Have all outstanding staff appraisals now been completed, and how are staff development needs followed up?
- 02Was the temporary locked medicines cupboard removed, and where are medicines stored now?
- 03Have all care workers started or completed the Care Certificate mentioned in the report?
- 04How are my relative's preferred activities, communication needs and dietary needs recorded and reviewed now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with ratings for each one; the previous inspection in October 2014 had also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2017 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 Farm House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Franklyn Lodge The Farm House →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Franklyn Lodge The Farm House →
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
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.