Franklin House Limited

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 March 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 19 to 21 January 2026.

This service is a residential care home providing support to people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 35 people lived at the service.

We carried out this focused assessment in response to concerns about the quality and safety of care people received.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Measures were in place to ensure people received the support in the least restrictive way possible. Care records contained the relevant level of information in relation to people's capacity and any deprivation of people's liberty (DoLS) authorisations.

Risks to people were assessed and actions were taken to reduce the risk of harm. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had the necessary safety checks in place before starting work and completed a full induction. We were not assured there were always sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences, however, the provider did not always make sure medicines and treatments were recorded appropriately.

Policies and procedures were in place to promote people's independence, choice and control. We observed staff supporting people and encouraging their independence and choice. Activities had increased since the last inspection.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

Staff praised the registered manager, deputy manager the wider management team. Staff spoke positively about the support they received.

Recording systems were not always accurate and the provider’s auditing systems were not always robust. The registered manager updated their auditing tools during the inspection.

Processes were in place to ensure learning happened when things went wrong and examples of good practice to support further learning were shared. Systems and processes supported ongoing learning and development.