Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Franklyn Lodge

Goodpublished 4 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements and staffing measures. They were only somewhat assured about the premises because of damaged surfaces that could create an infection-control risk.
Effective?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2022

Franklyn Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls, with some premises repairs needed.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.

Inspectors were assured about testing, vaccination, personal protective equipment, visiting arrangements, social distancing and infection-control training. The home was clean and tidy, with enough protective equipment available.

Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the safety of the premises. They found cracked bathroom tiles, chipped paint and exposed chipboard in the kitchen. The manager said immediate action would be taken.

The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four CQC questions.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection-control training

    Staff, including agency workers, had received infection prevention and control training and understood the measures needed.

    “Staff had a good understanding of infection prevention and control measures.” from the report
  • Testing and protective equipment

    Visitors and staff were tested, and the home had appropriate supplies of protective equipment.

    “The home had sufficient and appropriate stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
  • Visiting arrangements

    Visitors had their temperatures checked and were required to show a negative lateral flow test. Hand-washing facilities, hand gel and masks were available.

    “Visitors were required to have their temperatures taken and show evidence of a negative lateral flow test (LFT) taken on the day of the visit.” from the report
  • Space for distancing

    The communal area was spacious and arranged to help people and staff keep apart.

    “The communal area of the home was spacious and been arranged to ensure people and staff were able to socially distance.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Damaged surfaces

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found cracked tiles and chipped paint in a bathroom, plus exposed chipboard in the kitchen. They said these could present an infection-control risk, and the manager said immediate action would be taken.

    “we found cracked tiles and chipped paint in a bathroom, and a small area of chipboard in the kitchen was exposed where the covering had broken off.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have the cracked bathroom tiles and chipped paint been repaired, and when was this work completed?
  2. 02Has the exposed chipboard in the kitchen been covered or replaced?
  3. 03How are you currently managing any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
  4. 04Do visitors, agency staff and visiting professionals still need to provide the testing or vaccination evidence described in the report?
  5. 05How will you show us the home’s ratings or inspection findings for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full assessment of the other four CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.

This was an unannounced planned inspection on 19 December 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, the manager and staff, and checked care, staff, safety and management records.

The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, trained staff, clean premises and care tailored to people's needs and choices.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. They were supported with healthcare, food, activities, communication, independence and cultural or religious needs. The home had a complaints process, but no complaints had been recorded.

The home remains Good, the same rating as the previous inspection published on 5 July 2017. No regulations were reported as breached and no enforcement action was mentioned.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised support

    Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication methods and cultural or religious needs. Staff knew how to provide individual support.

    “People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and speaking to them in a pleasant, respectful and friendly way.

    “Staff spent time with people. They smiled and talked with people in a pleasant, respectful and friendly manner.” from the report
  • Safe medicines and staffing

    Records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Staffing levels were considered adequate and recruitment checks had been completed.

    “Medicines administration records (MAR) examined indicated that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Activities and independence

    People were supported with outings, day centres, holidays and therapeutic activities. Staff also encouraged people to make choices and be as independent as possible.

    “The home had a varied programme of social and therapeutic activities which included outings to places of interest, the park, the corner shop, holidays and attendance at day centres.” from the report
  • Communication support

    The home used pictorial information, objects of reference and picture books. Care records explained how each person communicated through gestures, sounds or actions.

    “Important documents such as care plans, menus, policies and procedures were in pictorial form so that they could be easily understood by people.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Manager registration

    minor

    At the inspection, the home did not have a manager currently registered with the CQC. A new manager had been recruited and had applied to become registered.

    “The home did not have a current manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
  • Electrical safety certificate

    needs fixing

    An electrical installations certificate initially found that the installations were not satisfactory. The home arranged remedial work promptly and sent the CQC a new certificate after the inspection.

    “The electrical installations certificate indicated that the installations were not satisfactory.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the new manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
  2. 02What remedial work was carried out after the electrical installations were found not to be satisfactory?
  3. 03How will you understand my relative's communication through gestures, sounds or actions?
  4. 04What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative, and how would their choices be supported?
  5. 05How would you involve my relative and our family in reviews of care, health needs and best-interest decisions?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Franklyn Lodge

3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Franklyn Lodge →

  2. February 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Franklyn Lodge →

  3. July 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
John M., about Liliana S.
“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.”
Lindsay C., about Peter W.
See live-in carers near BrentProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.