Franklyn Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 7 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 the provider did not have good governance systems in place. Audits of the service had not picked up on concerns we found during our assessment. It was unclear what the purpose of the service was. Staff were not knowledgeable about the direction of the organisation. The service improvement plan was not robust enough. It was difficult to establish what had been improved or achieved. However, the service worked well with other professionals. Staff told us they felt well supported and could speak up without fear of any adverse consequences.

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.

Staff and leaders struggled to explain clearly the purpose of the service. It was not clear if staff had a good understanding of the culture within the home.

It was difficult to establish the direction of the service. There was a lack of knowledge about the culture and purpose. The provider did not have clear strategic goals in place. This meant staff were not clear on what they were trying to achieve. There was no clear vision of the service. Overall, this meant staff did not know how their role fit into the organisation.

Staff told us the manager was very helpful and supportive to them. The registered manager had an open-door policy and was available for staff when needed.

The registered manger was experienced in their role. They were compassionate and caring. Everyone we spoke with told us they found the manager approachable.

Everyone we spoke with told us they had no concerns about speaking up and would do so when needed.

The provider had created opportunities for staff to offer feedback and make suggestions. There was a whistleblowing process in place and staff were not fearful of any consequences. Team meetings and 1:1 support was offered to staff regularly. This meant staff could seek guidance from leaders when needed.

The registered manager told us that during the recruitment process staff are asked about what support they may need, for example, if they had a disability. This meant reasonable adjustments may need to be put in place. Team meetings were held for staff which meant they could seek guidance when needed regarding equality and diversity.

The provider had a plan in place to ensure that staff being recruited to the service were a good match for people using the service. For example, by recruiting staff with similar cultural backgrounds to people living at the home. This meant people using the service could be confident that staff may have a good understanding of their cultural needs. Staff had training in equality and diversity. The provider had equality and diversity policies in place to offer staff guidance when needed.

The registered manager told us they regularly conducted a range of audits and reports of the quality of care at the service.

The lack of detail in risk and care plans meant staff did not have enough guidance to provide care in line with people’s assessed needs. The provider did not have a robust system in place to ensure information was recorded in enough detail for staff to follow. The provider did not provide staff with consistent training to be effective in their role. On our second visit to the service the provider had not addressed all the concerns we had about the environment for example, there was broken furniture in the home which had not been repaired or removed. Overall, issues identified at this assessment could have been picked up by the provider if there had been a more robust monitoring and auditing system in place. Issues outlined above could place people at risk of harm.

Relatives told us that people did a variety of activities both in the home and externally to the home. For example, 1 person attended a colleague and the home organised day trips to the coast.

The registered manager and staff told us they supported people to do activities in the community.

The provider supported people to access the local and wider community. Links in the community was established. We did not receive any concerns from any partner organisations.

The provider had a care planning and review process in place. People’s goals included engagement with partners and the community. Care plans reviewed showed that although people were doing activities both in the home and community, goals outlined were not measured and therefore it was difficult to establish how people were progressing with these. This meant people may not have acquired new skills in line with their preferences and wishes.

The registered manager told us they had established an action plan following their last inspection. However, this plan was not comprehensive and did not include all of the concerns we found on assessment. This meant that the home may not make the improvements necessary to drive the service forward.

Information provided by the provider showed there was an action plan in place. However, there was little evidence of what actions have been achieved. For example, there was an action for monthly audits and quarterly external audits.