FDR Social Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Care plans did not accurately reflect medication people were taking. Where care worker occasionally applied creams to people’s skin, there was not full information about what these creams were or where or when they should be applied. Information about people’s medication was not up to date in their care plans. This constituted a breach of Safe Care and Treatment. Mental capacity assessments did not have accurate information. The service had commissioned an external audit of their records but the recommendations from this had not been fully actioned. There had been improvements in safeguarding and there was a robust recruitment process in place to ensure safe and effective staffing.

This service scored 59 (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 they had only made one minor complaint about the service, and this had been resolved quickly. They said, “FDR management is proactive in terms of response and actions when we request any changes or highlight anything.” Not all issues identified at the last inspection, or in an external audit commissioned by the service, had been fully addressed. This had not been identified by the Registered Manager. The service was working to embed a culture of openness and collaboration, but it was not consistent. Staff told us that they had learnt a lot in their time working for the service and the managers share updates regularly. We saw evidence of regular supervision with care workers where learning needs were discussed.

People’s relatives told us there was a grab sheet in place should the person receiving care need hospitalisation. Evidence of this was seen however this was not updated to accurately reflect the medication the person was receiving. The service only provided care on a private basis and so there were no partners to seek feedback from. Care and support was planned and organised with people and their families in ways that ensured continuity of care. Care workers told us they had all the information they needed in the care system, and they had the opportunity to read care plans before they started to support people.

People’s relatives told us “FDR staff and managers talk to us often and they do carer unannounced checks sometimes.” They said they feel very safe with the support provided by the service. We saw there had been improvements in Safeguarding processes and, although there had not been any safeguarding incidents, there was a robust procedure in place. There was a mental capacity assessment in place around consent to care and support, however this did not accurately reflect the conditions of the person using the service. This has been updated since the assessment was completed. Care workers told us they had received Safeguarding training, and they knew what kinds of things should be raised as a safeguarding concern and how to do this. They said they “feel comfortable to report incidents.”

People’s relatives told us FDR staff “really understand their duty of care and offer [relative] lots of choices.” They told us they work with the service to keep their relative safe. Care workers gave us examples of how they manage risks to people and what actions they would take if there were any incidents or accidents. It was not clear from care plans what medication people were taking and therefore it was not clear that all risks had been fully assessed. Some risk assessments required more detail to ensure care workers knew how to keep people safe. There was limited evidence of people having input into their risk assessments.

People’s relatives told us that FDR staff make sure their relative has a safe environment free from hazards. Staff had no feedback in this area. There were environmental risk assessments in place.

People’s relatives told us there was a safe process in place to introduce new carers. They had a consistent staff team and knew both the regular carer and the person who would stand in for them well. They said, “staff appear very experienced”. Care workers told us they felt they had had enough training to support people. We saw evidence that care workers had been recruited safely and appropriate checks had been completed prior to them starting to support people. Training was up to date.

People’s relatives told us that care workers maintained safe hygiene procedures. They said “they have gloves, masks and aprons stored in our store area for their use. We have a hand basin along the corridor, and I have seen [care worker] washing their hands between tasks and when they come in from outside.” Care workers told us they had received training in infection prevention and control. They told us they change their gloves between supporting with personal care and other activities. We saw risk assessments in place around infection prevention and control. Spot checks carried out by the service included checking that appropriate personal protective equipment was being used.

People’s relatives told us that FDR did not support with medication, and this was managed by themselves. Care workers told us that they occasionally help the person with applying cream to their feet and that they were directed by the person or their relatives when this should be done. Care plans did not accurately reflect the medication people were taking and had not been updated when medication was changed. This meant that it was not clear if appropriate risk assessments were in place. There was insufficient guidance in care plans around the application of creams.