Fitzwarren House

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

The provider captured people's life histories, interests, preferences, and the people who were important to them as part of support planning. This information was used to help staff understand people's individual needs and what mattered to them.

During the assessment, we observed activity staff engaging with people in a meaningful and personalised way.

Staff told us they spent additional time with people who received fewer visitors to support their emotional wellbeing and reduce the risk of social isolation.

A relative told us, “The staff all work so hard to make people feel like they are at home and nothing seems to be too much trouble.”

This meant that staff knew people well and used information about their lives, interests, and relationships to provide care and support that reflected their individual preferences and personal circumstances.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and worked with other services and professionals to support continuity of care.

People benefited from support provided by long-serving staff who knew them well and had developed an understanding of their individual needs, preferences, and routines.

Healthcare professionals described working relationships with nursing staff as positive and collaborative. They told us staff shared information appropriately, sought professional guidance when required, and worked alongside external professionals to support people's health and wellbeing.

A relative told us, “Staff are key in Fitzwarren, many have worked there some time, and it shows.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people's individual needs.

People's communication needs were documented within their care plans, helping staff understand how best to share information and support effective communication.

The manager told us people received information about the service before, or at the point of admission, and that information could be made available in alternative formats where required. This was in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff received daily handovers and updates regarding people's health and support needs to help ensure important information was shared within the service. Feedback from relatives regarding communication was good. "Any concerns we have raised have been listened to, discussed and actioned."

The provider did not always ensure people were meaningfully involved in discussions about their care, support or the development of the service. Opportunities for people to formally share their views and experiences were limited and were not provided consistently. As a result, the provider could not be assured that people were regularly consulted about their experiences or that their feedback was consistently used to influence how the service was delivered.

Feedback about the food provided was mixed. Some people told us there was limited access to fresh fruit and vegetables and insufficient choice. Comments included, "I am used to having a lot more fresh vegetables", "There's never enough fruit; a friend brings me fruit in. Not enough money is spent on food", and, "The menus are done at the head office." One person told us, "I don't like the food. I'm vegetarian and there's very limited options." Although people could record their preferences using food choice forms, some did not feel their views were fully reflected in the meals provided.

We saw concerns regarding the variety of vegetarian meal options had been raised at a relatives' and friends' meeting in March 2026. While the provider had systems in place to gather feedback, people continued to raise similar concerns during our assessment. This indicated feedback was not always acted upon in a way that resulted in improvements to people's experiences.

Despite this, the provider had systems in place to encourage feedback and involvement. Information about how to make a complaint was displayed within the service and available to people, relatives and visitors. People and their relatives were able to raise concerns and provide feedback when required, and the provider held regular meetings with relatives to gather views about the quality of care and support provided.

The provider also demonstrated how feedback was used to support improvements through a "You Said, We Did" approach, which outlined actions taken in response to comments and suggestions received. Following concerns raised about food choices, people were encouraged to complete questionnaires to share their views, and the manager told us people could request meals of their choice through the service's 'Resident of the Day' initiative. Kitchen staff also worked to accommodate individual preferences and dietary requirements where possible. These arrangements demonstrated the provider sought and responded to feedback, although further work was needed to ensure people consistently felt listened to and that their views resulted in meaningful changes to the service.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed in a timely way. The environment was designed to support accessibility, with wide corridors and spacious communal areas benefiting from natural light, helping people move around the service safely and comfortably. People had access to outdoor space and a balcony garden.

People told us they had access to additional services, including a hairdresser, and audiology when required. Referrals were made to external healthcare professionals to support people's health and wellbeing needs.

Staff were able to describe the arrangements in place for accessing support outside normal working hours, including contacting out-of-hours healthcare services and emergency services where necessary.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to and respond to information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care and support. This meant care was not always tailored to ensure people could access opportunities and experiences that met their individual needs and preferences.

People did not always have access to a wide range of meaningful activities. During our observations, some activities were taking place; however, not everyone was actively participating, and activities were not always adapted to reflect people's individual abilities.

A professional told us “Activities are limited. “There needs to be more going on, with different activities according to people’s abilities.”

People gave mixed feedback about the activities available within the service. Some told us they had noticed a decline in the quality and variety of activities on offer. Comments from people included, “There is little or nothing for me to do.” and, “We are very restricted to what we can do.”

However, others spoke positively about opportunities available to them. Comments from people included, “They sometimes take me to the shop; I enjoy that" and another person said, “There's a good variety of entertainment.”

The manager acknowledged feedback regarding activities and told us they had recently recruited a new member of the activities team and expected this to improve activity provision.

This meant people may not have had equal opportunities to engage in meaningful occupation and social interaction that reflected their individual preferences.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including decisions about their future care and treatment. Where appropriate, people had advance care plans in place, which recorded their preferences for end-of-life care and helped ensure staff and healthcare professionals were aware of their wishes.

Care records included information about people's individual preferences, values, and choices relating to end-of-life care.

A healthcare professional described the end-of-life care provided on the nursing unit as “exceptional” and spoke positively about the support provided to people and their families.

Staff told us a chaplain regularly visited the home and was available to support people with their spiritual and religious needs.

This demonstrated that systems were in place to support people to express their wishes for future care and to help ensure end-of-life care reflected their individual preferences and needs.