CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Frindsbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Frindsbury House was rated Good; inspectors found improved, safe and person-centred care, but there was no registered manager in post at the visit.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 12 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect, supported to make choices and helped to maintain relationships, interests and independence.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. The five earlier breaches had been addressed. These included concerns about safeguarding, medicines, recruitment checks, food and drink records, and quality audits.
There was no registered manager when inspectors visited because the previous manager had left in January 2019. A management team was running the home and recruiting a replacement.
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the five areas where it previously failed to meet the regulations.
“At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made in relation the five requirements made above.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored safely, staff were trained and records showed no gaps or omissions in administration records.
“There were no gaps or omissions which indicated people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and do as much as possible for themselves.
“This enabled people to achieve positive outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered a range of group and individual activities, including outings and support to maintain family relationships.
“The best thing about the place is the number of activities you can take part in.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“The interactions between people and staff were positive, caring and inclusive.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe registered manager had left before the inspection. The provider was recruiting a replacement, while the deputy manager was acting as manager.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission when we inspected.” from the report
Possible weekend staffing pressure
minorOne person said staffing was sometimes short, especially at weekends. The report did not rate staffing as inadequate, but families should ask how weekend staffing levels are managed.
“Sometimes they are short staffed, especially at weekends.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while there is no registered manager, and when do you expect a new manager to be appointed?
- 02How many staff are planned to be on duty at weekends, and how do you respond if staffing is short?
- 03How are medicines audits carried out now, following the previous concerns about medicines records and storage?
- 04How are food and drink records checked for people who need support to eat or drink safely?
- 05How do people and relatives help decide which activities and community outings are offered?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with the care home premises and care provided both inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Frindsbury House is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but serious problems with medicines, safeguarding, nutrition and management checks.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 January 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, staff files, audits and other records.
People generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, clean surroundings, personalised care plans, good support with healthcare, and caring and respectful staff. Activities, family contact and complaints arrangements were also viewed positively.
However, medicines were not always recorded, stored or checked safely. Staff did not always follow specialist advice about thickened drinks. A safeguarding concern about unsafe moving and handling had not been referred or properly investigated. Recruitment records and quality checks were also not always adequate.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in December 2015 to Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and considerate interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and preferred ways of communicating.
“The manager and staff demonstrated caring, kind and compassionate attitudes towards people.” from the report
Enough staff
Rotas showed staffing was planned around people's needs. Inspectors saw staff available and not rushed.
“There were enough staff to support people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, routines and communication. They were reviewed regularly.
“Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were encouraged to take part in activities they valued and to maintain important relationships. Relatives were welcomed.
“People were supported to maintain their relationships with people who mattered to them.” from the report
Medicines were not safely managed
seriousRecords did not always explain missed doses or the use of medicines given as needed. Stock, storage temperatures and staff knowledge about disguised medicines were also concerns.
“Medicines had not been managed safely. Medicines had not recorded, stored or monitored effectively.” from the report
Safeguarding response
seriousA concern about unsafe moving and handling had not been referred to the local safeguarding team. There had also been no proper investigation, competency assessment or retraining at the time inspectors checked.
“These practices were not reported to local authority safeguarding team for investigation.” from the report
Specialist nutrition guidance was not recorded
seriousRecords did not show the required drink consistencies or how much thickener had been used. This made it difficult to confirm that specialist advice had been followed.
“Hence, it was difficult to establish if SALT guidelines had been followed by staff.” from the report
Recruitment records had gaps
seriousThree of the five staff files checked had unexplained gaps in employment history. The provider's own recruitment policy required these gaps to be explored.
“Gaps in staff employment histories were not fully explored in three out of five files reviewed.” from the report
Audits did not lead to action
seriousManagement audits identified medicine errors and record problems, but there was often no documented action, investigation or competency check afterwards.
“This meant the audit programme did not contribute to improved practice or safety.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine dose, missed dose and as-needed medicine is recorded correctly?
- 02How are medicine temperatures, stock levels and staff competency now checked?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns about moving and handling reported, investigated and followed up?
- 04How do staff record and check the thickness of drinks and the amount of thickener used for people with specialist guidance?
- 05What action plan followed the inspection, and how do managers now make sure audit findings are completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good at the inspection on 15 December 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2018 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 Frindsbury House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.