FDR Social Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Governance systems did not consistently identify where improvement in documentation was needed. Care plan audits did not identify the issues seen during this assessment. This constituted a breach in Good Governance. However, there was a positive culture within the service and care workers felt able to raise concerns if they had them.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care workers described a positive culture within the service. We saw evidence of an open culture where feedback was regularly sought. Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate and listening culture that promoted trust between them and people using the service

Care workers told us they felt the leaders of the service were knowledgeable and had “been brilliant” in providing them support to improve their skills. Leaders lacked insight into the issues identified during the assessment. They had not identified these issues themselves. An external audit had been commissioned by the service but the issues this identified had also not been full actioned.

Care workers told us they felt listened to by the managers of the service. We saw that care workers had the opportunity to provide feedback both through supervision and anonymous surveys. Leaders encouraged staff to speak up if they had concerns.

Care workers told us they felt supported by the managers of the service and were supported where this was needed. There was no evidence of concern in this area.

Care staff did not have any specific feedback in this area. The service’s governance process was not always effective at identifying where documentation needed improvement. There was inconsistent and inaccurate information in people’s care documentation, and this had not been picked up by the Registered Manager.

People’s relatives told us they worked closely with care workers and managers from the service. Care workers did not have any specific feedback in this area. Staff and leaders understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. The Registered Manager was open and transparent.

Staff did not have any specific feedback in this area. Identifying and implementing ways to improve was inconsistent. The service had employed several methods of identifying where improvement was needed but the results of these were not always fully implemented. There had been improvements made since the last inspection, but these had not fully addressed all shortfalls.