CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Frognal House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Sunrise of Frognal is rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 May 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and checked infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found up-to-date risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control measures and checks to learn from accidents. People and relatives said they felt safe and were treated well.
The previous inspection, published in September 2019, rated the service Requires Improvement and found several legal breaches. This inspection found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good.
Up-to-date risk planning
Risk assessments covered areas such as falls, moving and handling, eating and drinking, diabetes and pressure sores. They gave staff clear instructions for reducing individual risks.
“Risk assessments were up to date with detailed guidance for staff on how to reduce individual risks.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and handled by trained staff whose competence had been checked. Records were up to date and stock matched the records reviewed.
“Medicines were securely stored and were only accessible to trained staff whose competency to administer medicines had been assessed.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and promptly. Recruitment checks included identity, criminal records, references and the right to work.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Management and quality checks
The home had a clear management structure and systems to check care quality and safety. These checks had helped keep care plans and risk plans up to date when people's needs changed.
“Systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's risk assessments up to date if their needs change?
- 02How do you decide staffing levels for each person's needs, and how quickly are call bells answered?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's medicines, including any medicines given only when needed, are administered and recorded safely?
- 04How are visits, testing, protective equipment and infection control arrangements being managed now?
- 05What backup arrangements are in place if the electronic care records system stops working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were not assessed and were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines and falls management were not safe enough.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 13 and 14 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and dignity. Inspectors found enough staff, clean premises, suitable care plans, support with food and drink, access to healthcare and a range of activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Medicines were not always managed safely. Falls risks were not always reviewed or reduced. The quality checks had not found and dealt with these problems quickly enough.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This means the report found important shortfalls, and the home did not provide enough assurance that care was consistently safe and well managed. The rating had not improved since the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“People told us staff treated them with dignity, and that their privacy was respected.” from the report
Staffing
Staffing levels were consistently maintained to meet people's assessed needs. Inspectors saw staff respond to call bells in a timely way.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and healthcare
Staff assessed people's nutritional needs and supported them with food and drink. The home worked with a range of healthcare professionals.
“Staff assessed people's nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care plans included people's interests and communication needs. Daily activities included music, trips, gardening, arts and crafts and chair exercises.
“Staff recognised people's need for stimulation and supported people to follow their interests and take part in activities.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome staff had not been trained and assessed for specific medicines. Records did not always contain enough information, and some doses and stock records did not match the prescription or actual stock.
“Medicines were still not always being managed safely.” from the report
Falls risks were not managed well enough
seriousSome people who had fallen did not have updated falls risk assessments. The home identified possible causes of falls but did not have a clear action plan to reduce the risks and check whether it worked.
“The arrangements for falls management was not effective.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems quickly
needs fixingThe provider had several audits, but these did not identify or resolve all the medicines and falls problems in good time. This was a continuing shortfall from the previous inspection.
“The provider had not always identified issues that we found at this inspection and acted upon in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines training, competency checks and medicines records since this inspection?
- 02How do you now record the reason and effect when a medicine is given on a when-required basis?
- 03How are repeated falls reviewed, and how do you check that actions taken have reduced the risk?
- 04What evidence can you show that your quality audits now identify and resolve medicines and falls problems promptly?
- 05If my relative needs nursing care or end-of-life care, how would their needs be met and where would care be provided?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with findings based on records, observations and discussions with people, relatives and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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.
Every inspection of Frognal House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2017.
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 Bexley
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. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.