CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Franklyn Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Franklyn Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2021. It focused only on infection prevention and control because of the CQC's response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, temperatures were checked and protective equipment was provided. Staff understood infection control measures, had training and updates, and the home had suitable supplies of protective equipment.
The home also used a taxi service when needed, displayed infection control guidance and had a simple handbook about COVID-19. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed safely.
The home was not given an overall rating or a rating for safety. This inspection did not assess the other areas of care.
Visitor screening
Visitors were screened at the door, had their temperatures checked and were given protective equipment before entering.
“The service ensured that visitors to the home were carefully screened so that they do not present a risk to people in the home.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff had infection control training and regular updates. The home had enough suitable protective equipment, and staff changed clothes at the home.
“Staff had a good understanding of infection prevention and control measures.” from the report
Clear guidance
The home used a simple, pictorial COVID-19 handbook and displayed infection control guidance at the entrance.
“There was a COVID-19 infection control handbook. It was in a simple and pictorial format so that people could easily understand it.” from the report
Safer travel
The home provided a taxi service when necessary to reduce the risks linked to public transport.
“The home provided a taxi service when necessary. This was to reduce the risk associated with travel on public transport.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current arrangements for screening visitors and providing protective equipment?
- 02How does the home currently access COVID-19 testing for residents and staff?
- 03Is the COVID-19 infection control handbook still available in a simple and pictorial format?
- 04What arrangements are currently used to reduce risks when residents need to travel on public transport?
- 05What were the home's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led at its previous full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the home was inspected but not rated, and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2021 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 2020
Franklyn Lodge rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care planning, staffing and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 February and 6 March 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about staffing, risk assessments and person-centred care. They reviewed records, observed care and sought information from professionals and the provider.
The home supported nine adults with autism and learning disabilities. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but they could not be assured that safety was being managed effectively. Risk assessments did not properly identify triggers for behaviour that could cause harm, staffing records did not clearly show who was working, and PRN medicines guidance was too general.
Inspectors also found that people were following similar routines rather than receiving clearly personalised care. Audits had not identified these problems, and managers were not always available when expected. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, but the overall rating fell to Requires Improvement.
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to identify and report concerns.
“People who used the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The report found that required pre-employment and DBS checks had been completed before staff started work.
“Records showed that pre-employment checks had been carried out.” from the report
Fire safety
The home had responded to a fire enforcement notice and remedied all the failures identified in it.
“All failures in the notice had been remedied to satisfaction.” from the report
Cleanliness
Inspectors found the home mostly clean, with infection control arrangements and relevant staff training in place.
“The home was mostly clean and there were no unpleasant odours.” from the report
Behaviour risk assessments
seriousAssessments did not identify specific triggers or explain how staff should reduce the risk of challenging behaviour. This could mean staff miss important warning signs.
“There was a risk that staff could miss specific triggers and would not be able to support the person fully to minimise the likelihood of the behaviour happening in the first instance.” from the report
Unclear staffing records
seriousRotas, handover sheets and sign-in records did not consistently match. This meant inspectors could not be sure who was working or whether staffing was enough for people's needs.
“Therefore, it was unclear, which staff were working on particular days and whether they were sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
PRN medicines guidance
seriousProtocols for medicines given when needed were too general and did not contain enough person-specific information for staff to follow the prescriber's instructions safely.
“They did not contain enough information to support staff to administer PRN medicines as intended by the prescriber.” from the report
Limited personalisation
needs fixingPeople followed similar daily routines, and records did not clearly show their individual choices and preferences.
“The culture at the service did not promote person centred care.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not found the problems with risk assessments, reviews and personalised care before the inspection.
“Quality assurance systems had not been used effectively to identify concerns we identified during this inspection.” from the report
- 01How are individual behaviour triggers now identified, recorded and used in staff support plans?
- 02How do you check that rotas, sign-in records and handovers accurately show who worked each shift?
- 03What has changed in the PRN medicines protocols, and how do they now reflect each person's needs?
- 04How are people's daily routines and personal care choices recorded and reviewed?
- 05What action was included in the report sent to CQC, and what improvements have been checked since this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 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
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
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.