Franklyn Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed 4 quality statements from this key question. We have combined scores for these areas based on our rating from our previous inspection which was good. We found that information was not always in a format that was fully accessible to people using the service. Staff did not always involve people in making decisions about the service. However, care and support plans showed people’s individual needs had been considered and care was tailored to meet those needs as a result.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives told us they were happy with the home and were involved in people’s care and support needs.

Staff and leaders had assessed people’s needs and were able to explain how to meet these needs including any health and cultural needs.

Care plans reviewed showed referrals were made to health care professionals when needed, this meant people’s care needs could be met by people with expert skills and knowledge in a range of areas.

The provider could evidence that they provided care based on individual needs. Care plans reviewed showed people’s assessed needs including their cultural needs had been considered. This meant people could be confident that their care would be tailored to them as individuals.

Relatives told us they had been provided with information which was suitable to their requirements.

Staff and leaders told us they provided people with information which met their needs. People’s communication needs were assessed by the provider.

Relatives told us they had been invited to regular meetings within the home and were involved in people’s care.

Staff told us that due to some people’s communication difficulties, they did not always include people in meetings.

The provider carried out a survey about the quality of care for families recently, the results of the feedback was overall positive about the service. However, it was unclear from care plan reviews how people were involved in their reviews or in the service. This meant people may not have a say in how care and support should be provided. It was difficult to establish how communication methods had been used to obtain people’s views.

Feedback from relatives was positive regarding people accessing health care and leisure activities to meet people’s wishes.

Staff and leaders told us that people could access the community and health care when needed. Outcomes were outlined in people’s care and review plans.

Health care professional worked well within the service. We did not have any concerns raised with us by any of the visiting healthcare professionals.

People using the service had registered with the GP. Other health care professionals were also involved with people using the service. This meant people could receive support from a range of medical professionals, with the expert knowledge to meet individual needs. Outcomes for people were outlined in care plans and reviews. However, it was difficult to establish how these were measured for progress.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.