Frinton House

Updated 1 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Frinton House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

We visited the home on the 01 and 06 February 2018. This was an unannounced inspection. When planning the inspection we took account of the size of the service and that some people at the home could find visitors unsettling. As a result, this inspection was carried out by one inspector without an expert by experience or specialist advisor.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information we held about the service. We considered information which had been shared with us by the local authority, looked at safeguarding concerns that had been raised and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we reviewed the records of the home, this included two staff recruitment files, training and supervision records, medicine records, accidents and incidents, quality audits and policies and procedures, along with information in regard to the upkeep of the premises. We looked at two people’s support plans and risk assessments in full, along with risk assessments and daily records for another two people. We spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff.

During the inspection we also spoke with a person’s relative. Some people were not able to tell us their views of life at Frinton House so we observed the support delivered in communal areas to get a view of care and support provided. This helped us understand the experience of people living at Frinton House. Following the inspection we received comments in writing from a visiting health professional and a relative. We also spoke with another relative by telephone. We asked the registered manager for additional information by email and this was received promptly.

Updated 1 June 2018

Frinton House provides accommodation for up to six adults who have learning disabilities. There were six people living at the home at the time of our inspection. People's needs varied, some displayed behaviours that challenged and some were on the autism spectrum. People had complex communication needs and required staff who knew them well to meet their needs. Frinton House is owned by Consensus Support Services Limited who have a number of care homes nationally.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service had been rated requires improvement at the last two inspections. At the last inspection in December 2016 there were two breaches of regulations and requirement notices were issued. Breaches were in relation to a lack of good governance and a failure to give appropriate consideration to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in accordance with legal requirements. (The MCA promotes choice in decision making and DoLS provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.) We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show improvements they would make, what they would do, and by when, to improve the key questions in effective and well-led to at least good. At this inspection we found the provider was now meeting legal requirements and in some areas was providing an outstanding quality of care.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 1 and 6 February 2018.

There was excellent leadership in the home and the registered manager had an open door policy which staff valued. Staff were fully involved and committed to achieving the home’s and organisation’s values and vision. The organisation had extensive systems to monitor and review the quality of the care provided.

Appropriate referrals were made to health care professionals when needed, and people were supported to attend health appointments, such as the GP or dentist. Staff had worked together to support one person who had complex health needs and an innovative and imaginative solution had been found that ensured the person received the treatment and supported needed to make an excellent recovery. There were excellent links with specialists to ensure guidance and support was obtained to meet people’s complex needs. Where possible, easy read documentation had been used to help people understand difficult topics and situations. Feedback from professionals who supported people and from relatives was unanimously positive.

People were treated with utmost dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had an extremely good understanding of the care and support needs of people and had developed positive relationships with people. Relative's had complete confidence in the staff and told us they were always made to feel welcome at Frinton House. People’s achievements were displayed in a ‘Loud and Proud’ cabinet and relatives told us there had been an increase in parties and gatherings to celebrate people’s achievements.

Staff worked hard to ensure people’s dreams and aspirations were met. One person had been supported to have a meal out in a hotel as they had not previously done this. The person told us this had been a very special evening and they had enjoyed getting dressed up. Staff took lots of photographs to mark the occasion and these were shown to us with pride and enthusiasm. The person was very happy their dream had been achieved. This person had also been supported to start part-time voluntary work and they were very proud of how well this was going. Extensive work had been taken to increase the variety and range of activities people participated in, and staff told us people were happier as a result. This included attending college courses, having aromatherapy, attending drumming classes and lots of trips to places of interest.

Appropriate checks had taken place before staff were employed to ensure they were able to work safely with people at the Frinton House. People’s needs were effectively met because staff had the training and skills they needed to do so. Staff were extremely well supported with induction, training, supervision and an annual appraisal of performance. Training was specific to the needs of people living at Frinton House. ‘Sign’ training (A form of sign language used alongside the spoken word to enhance communication) had been planned for people and staff to complete together so this was an inclusive event and to ensure consistency.

People were encouraged to be involved in decisions and choices when it was appropriate. MCA assessments were completed as required and in line with legal requirements. Staff had attended MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. Best interests meetings, with a multidisciplinary approach, were held when necessary to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was at risk. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were robust procedures to ensure risks to people's safety were identified, assessed and managed. When incidents occurred they were reviewed promptly to ensure the risk of a reoccurrence was minimised.

People met weekly to decide the menus for the following week. Pictorial images were used to assist some people to choose the meals they wanted. People were involved in food preparation and support was provided in line with people’s individual needs. Menus were varied and demonstrated people received varied and well balanced diets.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.