FDR Social Care

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We saw evidence that people and their relatives had the opportunity to share their views about the service. There were provisions in place to ensure smooth handover between services. Care plans had limited information about people’s protected characteristics and information about communication abilities was inaccurate. The service had not been proactive in seeking out information about cultural and religious backgrounds.

This service scored 64 (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 the service was aware of their religious background, and it had been agreed that the family would advise the service of the implications of this as support was given. They said, “FDR staff are aware of our cultural beliefs and dressing, and they have sometimes supported [the person] to chose what to wear during one of our holidays.” Staff told us that they didn’t know a lot about the person’s religious background but that they had a close working relationship with the person’s relatives and were guided by them. Care workers told us they had done their own research into the person’s religious background. Care plans had limited information about cultural and religious background. Whilst it is acknowledged that the person’s relatives and care workers had good communication, and the care worker had been proactive in seeking out information this put unnecessary burden on them both. The service could have sought out information independently and provided this to care workers to ensure they had the correct information, and people were supported with dignity and respect. Following the assessment the service expanded information held in care plans.

People’s relatives told us that there were grab sheets in the person’s care plan should they need urgent medical care. Care Workers did not have any specific feedback in this area. We saw evidence that people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs and the service had offered to liaise with other services involved. However, this was managed by the person’s family. There was continuity in the person’s care because they had a very small staff team supporting them, with one main care worker and one other person to support when the main care worker was unavailable.

People’s relatives told us “FDR provides information that is easy to read and understand.” Care workers told us they were able to communicate effectively with the people they supported. Information about communication needs in care plans was inaccurate and so it did not appear that information had been provided in a way that was accessible for people. Information had not been provided in alternative languages where English was not people’s first language.

People’s relatives told us they had opportunities to provide feedback on the service and they felt they were listened to. They said “I have made FDR aware of some issues on timing, but I would not call it a complaint. They addressed it professionally.” Care workers did not have any specific feedback in this area. We saw evidence that the service sought both formal and informal feedback from people and their families. This was used to ensure the service was meeting their needs and improve the service.

People’s relatives told us they had not had to contact the service outside of normal office hours but that they knew how to do this should they need to. Care workers did not have any specific feedback in this area. We saw evidence that people were able to access care and support in a way that worked for them.

People’s relatives had no specific feedback in this area. Care workers had no specific feedback in this area. We did not see any evidence of concern in this area.

People’s relatives had no specific feedback in this area. Care workers had no specific feedback in this area. People’s care plans did not contain information about what they wanted to happen should they suddenly be taken ill as this was managed by the person’s relatives. There was no information available about what they would like to happen should the relatives be unavailable to support at a critical time.