CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Friston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and an up-to-date infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Friston House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inspection took place on 15 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours beforehand. It was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, arranged testing, followed social distancing guidance and had an up-to-date infection control policy. They found the building clean and free from odours.
Visitors could spend time with their relative in their room without time limits. A separate visiting suite was available if there was an outbreak, so visits could continue without visitors entering the home.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or a full set of ratings for all five areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control arrangements, including testing, protective equipment and staff training.
“Staff had received training in infection control to keep people safe and the provider's infection prevention control policy was up to date.” from the report
Visiting
Visits could take place in residents' rooms without time limits. A separate visiting suite allowed visits to continue during an outbreak.
“Visitors spent time with their loved one in their rooms and there was no time restrictions.” from the report
Clean environment
The building was clean, free from odours and arranged to support social distancing.
“The building was clean and odour free and had plenty of space to ensure people were able to social distance appropriately whilst still being able to spend time with each other.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How did COVID-19-related staffing pressures affect people's care and daily routines?
- 02Is the separate visiting suite still available if there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens when someone tests positive?
- 04How do you make sure staff use protective equipment correctly and follow infection control training?
- 05What arrangements are currently in place for visitors during an outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found the home safe and well led, with some records needing clearer detail.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 July 2018. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns raised about the home.
They found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management and appropriate care for pressure areas. People and relatives said they felt safe. The home was clean and equipment checks were generally in place.
The home had systems for audits, learning from incidents and gathering feedback. However, one recruitment record and some maintenance records were incomplete. The overall rating was Good. The other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection because they were not inspected this time.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were adjusted when people's needs increased.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risk and pressure-area care
Risks were assessed and reviewed. People received treatment, specialist equipment and regular repositioning when needed to reduce the risk of pressure damage.
“People's pressure areas had been appropriately recorded and treated.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team carried out audits, reviewed incidents and used feedback from people and relatives to improve the service.
“Effective systems were in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingOne recruitment record did not explain a long gap in employment. Some maintenance records were also incomplete or unclear.
“One recruitment record and some maintenance records were not always clear or complete.” from the report
Water and mattress checks
needs fixingWater temperature records showed only ticks and did not record the actual temperatures. Mattress checks also used tick boxes without recording the settings.
“The records in relation to these tests were poor; the temperature taken had not been recorded only a tick to show that each set of taps had been checked.” from the report
Unresolved actions
needs fixingThe quality review identified some issues that had already been noted but were not fully resolved at the time of the inspection.
“A number of these issues had been previously identified but not fully resolved.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of water temperatures and mattress settings since this inspection?
- 02How do you check that all recruitment records fully explain employment gaps?
- 03Which issues identified in your quality reviews were not fully resolved, and what has happened since?
- 04What activities and hobbies are currently available for people living with dementia, given that Responsive previously required improvement?
- 05How can relatives see the results of feedback surveys and the changes made in response?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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 Friston House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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.