CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Frintondene Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, staffing was sufficient and medicines were given as prescribed. Inspectors found one mismatch between pharmacy instructions and the home's guidance for a person's medicines, which the manager said they would clarify.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people's health, nutrition and choices, and worked with health professionals. Some staff refresher training was overdue while the home looked for a new trainer.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and compassionate. People were involved in their care and supported to keep their privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and abilities. Inspectors were concerned that people living with early dementia could become isolated and recommended finding better ways to encourage stimulating activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was approachable and staff felt supported, but quality monitoring was not robust enough. Inspectors said leadership had not consistently kept up to date with current good practice or identified risks early enough.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve its management and quality checks.
The inspection took place over three days in June 2019. One visit was unannounced and two were announced. Inspectors spoke with all six people living in the home, a relative, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, training, recruitment and safety records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and received their medicines on time. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and supported their choices, health needs and independence. Inspectors rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The home's checks were not always strong enough to identify risks or support up-to-date good practice. Inspectors made recommendations about management learning and helping people with dementia avoid becoming isolated. The overall rating remained Good.
Safe staffing
People and staff said there were enough staff, and people received timely support when they used the call buzzer.
“People told us they felt safe living in the service and there were sufficient numbers of staff to support their needs.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines. They treated people with respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
“Staff recognised people as individuals and treated them as such.” from the report
Food and drinks
People could choose food they liked, and staff understood their dietary needs. Drinks were available and staff monitored people's weight.
“People were supported to maintain a balanced, healthy diet and make choices about the kind of foods they enjoyed.” from the report
Health support
Staff noticed changes in people's health, contacted the right professionals and followed their advice.
“Referrals to health care professionals were made in a timely manner and recommendations they made were followed by staff.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's systems for checking quality and safety did not always identify risks early or drive improvements. Inspectors recommended that management keep up to date with government and practice guidance.
“Systems were in place, to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, this report and the fire safety officer's report, showed that the service's quality monitoring systems had not been robust enough in pre-empting risk.” from the report
Risk of isolation
needs fixingInspectors were concerned that people living with early dementia could become isolated, particularly in their bedrooms. They recommended that staff learn new ways to encourage suitable activities.
“We recommend, to prevent the risk of people living with dementia becoming isolated, staff use a reputable source to assist them in identifying and finding ways they can encourage people to access to a range of” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingFor one person, the pharmacy's instructions did not match the guidance given to staff. The manager said they would clarify this with the GP and take appropriate action.
“However, we found the instructions given by the dispensing pharmacy, for the use of one person's medicines did not reflect the provider's guidance given to staff.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the quality and safety checks since this inspection?
- 02How do you now keep management knowledge up to date with current care guidance and good practice?
- 03What activities are available for people living with dementia who may become isolated in their bedrooms?
- 04How are medicines instructions checked against pharmacy and prescriber guidance?
- 05Have all staff refresher training requirements been brought up to date?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the premises and care provided both assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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, November 2016
Frintondene Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 September 2016. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. Staff had relevant training and understood people's health, nutrition and support needs. People were treated kindly, with respect and dignity.
The home was described as friendly and family-focused. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported contact with relatives. Managers were involved in day-to-day care and had systems to listen to people's views and improve the service.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The report did not identify any breaches or enforcement action.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, attentive and respectful. Staff understood how to support people who became distressed.
“People who lived at the service, relatives and professionals all provided feedback about how kind and caring the staff were.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and routines. They respected choices about how people spent their time and supported individual interests.
“Staff knew people well and understood what they liked or disliked.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to provide care without rushing. Medicines were stored, given and checked through clear procedures.
“There were sufficient staff who had been recruited appropriately and who had the skills to manage risks and care for people safely.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff worked with health professionals and followed advice about people's health and nutrition. Food was adapted to individual needs and preferences.
“People's health, social and nutritional needs were met by staff who understood their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Involved management
Managers were visible and involved in supporting people and staff. The home gathered feedback and used it to monitor and improve care.
“The manager and deputy manager were freely available and actively involved in supporting people and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific health needs, given that the home does not provide nursing care?
- 02How would you support my relative if their nutritional needs or ability to eat changed?
- 03How would you keep our family informed about changes in my relative's care or health?
- 04What activities and support would be available to match my relative's interests and preferred routine?
- 05How are medicines checked and how would you respond to any missed or changed doses?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 2016 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 Frintondene Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.