FDR Social Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People and their families were confident that their individual needs had been appropriately assessed and fully understood. People were involved as much as possible in the assessment of their needs and were supported by their families to do so. Care workers told us how they ensured the person being supported was involved in day-to-day decisions and consented to the care delivered. However, reviews were not carried out in a timely fashion and new information from reviews was not updated in all care plan documents. Consent to care plans had not been signed by the person receiving support and it was not clear who had signed these or what authority they had to do so. Information about people’s protected characteristics required more depth.

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 they were involved in writing care plans with the Registered Manager and that these plans met the person’s needs. Information about people’s communication needs was inaccurate. The assessments did not consider the full range of people’s diverse needs and protected characteristics. Care workers told us there were no issues with communicating with people and they were supported to be involved in day-to-day decisions about their support.

People’s relatives told us that the service sought information from them about other professionals working with the person, Care workers did not have any feedback to share in this area. The provider’s systems ensured that staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

People’s relatives told us that care workers and the Registered Manager hand over any relevant information to the family. Care workers told us they have access to relevant information to appropriately support people. Where information in the care plan was limited, the care workers had sought out this information independently. We saw no evidence of concern in this area.

People’s relatives told us they manage all healthcare appointments on behalf of the person receiving support. Care workers had no concerns in this area. They told us that they were guided by the person’s relatives. We saw no evidence of concern in this area.

People’s relatives told us “FDR staff attend to [relative] with a lot of care and respect and insist on them making their own choices.” Care workers had no feedback in this area. We saw limited evidence of care plans being reviewed and updated regularly after the initial three months. Where changes had been identified these were not always reflected in care plans and risk assessments.

People’s relatives told us that care workers regularly asked for consent in the course of providing support. They said “[care worker] always asks [relative] for consent before any task. They knock on their bedroom door before going in; they explain things and processes to [relative] and wait for their consent.” Care workers told us how they seek consent from people and what they do when the person refuses support with certain activities. Consent to care plans had not always been obtained in line with relevant guidance and legislation. Consent to care plans had not been signed by the person or someone with legal authority to consent on their behalf. There was limited evidence of people’s views being taken into account in care plans and risk assessments.