Franklyn Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed 8 quality statements from this key question. We have combined scores for these areas based on our rating from our previous inspection which was requires improvement. Our rating for this key question remains requires improvement. We found risks of harm identified were not always mitigated as much as possible. The communal areas in the home needed updating. However, staff were recruited safely. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of emergencies and how to manage these. Medicines was administered safely.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives told us that staff were attentive and if mistakes were made, they were quickly rectified.

Staff and leaders, we spoke with told us they regularly discussed safety issues and lessons learned. Meeting minutes reviewed showed this was the case.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents or safety concerns. Following a complaint the provider created a family liaison role. This resulted in improvements in communication between the provider and families.

Overall relatives told us the home was good and responsive to people’s needs.

Staff and leaders were able to explain the importance of making sure people’s needs were met when moving between services. The registered manager gave us 2 clear examples of people moving from one service to another and care plans reviewed showed the transition was done safely.

We asked the local authority for feedback about the home. They did not report any concerns about the service being provided by the home.

The provider could evidence how people were able to move safely between services. Information was updated in care plans following a hospital discharge. This was shared with the team which meant people could be assured they would receive the right level of support including any changes to their care needs.

Relatives told us they felt people were safe living at the home.

Staff and leaders could clearly explain how to recognise and report abuse.

The service had visual posters and signs up about abuse and how to report it.

The provider had an effective system in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified and investigated. Posters and guidance were available and accessible. Safeguarding was discussed regularly in team meetings. Staff received training in safeguarding and how to recognise signs of abuse. This meant people could be confident that staff had the skills needed to protect them from harm or abuse.

Relatives told us they were involved in people’s care plans and were asked for their input.

Staff and leaders knew people well and were able to describe people’s care needs. Staff were able to describe some risks of harm to people and how to mitigate them.

During our site visit we observed staff engaging with people using the service. We observed staff using de-escalation techniques when a person using the service became distressed. The engagement was professional and compassionate. This resulted in the person keeping calm and was offered a lot of re-assurance.

We found risk plans lacked details for staff to follow. Risks that had been identified were not mitigated as much as possible. This meant people may be at risk of coming to harm. However, staff knew people’s needs well. We observed staff engaging with people in an appropriate manner when they were showing signs of distress. De-escalation techniques were used with positive results.

Feedback from relatives was that the home was clean and comfortable.

The registered manager and staff told us they were responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the service. Staff told us they would ensure all equipment worked before using it. However, on our visit to the home we observed that there was some broken furniture, and this remained in place 2 weeks later when we returned for a 2nd visit.

During our visit on site, we noted several concerns about the environment. The communal areas needed some upgrading and a deep clean. Some furniture needed to be repaired. The registered manager told us there was an action plan in place, however, the plan did not make any references to broken furniture or deep cleaning. Overall, the environment was outdated and needed a deep clean. We also noted the garden was very sparse. This meant the home as not as comfortable as it could be.

Audits and action plans covering health and safety for the service were in place. However, the home lacked a clear plan around maintenance/upgrading and deep cleaning. For example, we noted there was some furniture that needed to be repaired, and some communal areas were not deep cleaned. This meant the environment was less safe and comfortable for the people using the service. The providers auditing system had not picked up on these issues and therefore they had not been addressed. However, people’s bedrooms were clean and personalised.

Relatives told us the staff were good and there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One relative said, “When I attend there is enough staff around.”

The registered manager told us that staff had a comprehensive induction when starting in the service. Staff told us that they had access to a range of training to enable them to do their jobs effectively.

We observed that there was enough on duty including for 1:1 support, where needs were identified.

During our visit we noted that there was enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were in line with people’s assessed needs. Staff had been recruited to the service using safe practices. For example, prior to starting in their role background checks were carried out, including criminal checks. This meant people could be assured that staff had been fully vetted prior to taking up their employment.

Relatives told us that the home was clean and tidy. Staff were observed wearing gloves when providing people with personal care, which meant this could prevent the spread of infection.

Staff and leaders told us they were responsible for cleaning the home and preventing the spread of infection. However, the home in several areas was not clean and this meant there may be a risk of harm due to poor infection control practices.

There were several areas of the home that needed to have a deep clean. We noted for example, in one room, the blinds were shabby, there was a rusty radiator, some broken glass on the cabinet, the pull string for the light was very grubby. This meant people lived in an environment which was not very pleasant or homely. However, people’s bedrooms were clean and well maintained.

The provider had processes in place to manage infection prevention and control. There were policies and procedures in place to give staff guidance when needed. Staff had training in the prevention of infections. However, some areas of the home needed a deep clean. Audits of the home had not addressed this shortfall. Overall people using the service maybe exposed to harm.

Feedback from relatives was positive about people’s care needs including their medicine’s.

Staff and leaders understood how to administer medicines safely. They were able to explain the process and procedure in place for any medicine safely concerns.

The provider had a clear process in place for the safe administration of medicines. Audits of medicines were conducted regularly which meant issues were addressed quickly. Staff received training in the safe administration of people’s medicines. Medicine protocols in place had input form the GP. Overall people could be assured that they were not at risk of harm as medicines were managed safely.