Fastrack Resources Limited

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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met in a sufficiently person-centred way.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Not all people’s care plans were sufficiently person-centred. Some people’s care plans did not reflect all their needs, preferences and long-term aspirations and lacked sufficient individually specific details and instructions for staff.

This meant staff did not have immediate access to all the information needed to provide genuinely person-centred care and support to people all the time.

Staff had got to know people and their needs and preferences well. This meant people had received their care and support the way they wanted.

A person’s relative said, “There is good communication. They [staff] really get to know [his/her] needs and preferences”.

The provider understood the social care needs of the people they supported. Where a person was supported by more than one service, staff worked in a transparent, collaborative, flexible and open way to make sure care and support was joined up. People received their care and support from the same staff, which meant people had continuity of care. People and their relatives told us they received the full care and support that they funded.

A person’s relative told us, “[Mum/dad] gets personalised care with the same two carer`s for continuity, which is a great help with [his/her] dementia”.

Another person’s relative said, “They [staff] normally come early and stay for the full time”.

The provider did not meet all the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The provider had not identified, recorded, highlighted and shared information regarding the specific individual communication needs of each person.

People and their relatives understood how to give feedback, share ideas or complain about their care and support, and the provider supported people to do so. People and their relatives felt confident their views or concerns would be respected, taken seriously and treated compassionately, without negative repercussions. People and their relatives felt confident the provider would take appropriate action if they raised a concern or complaint. The provider worked with people and their relatives to agree solutions to the concerns they raised.

It was not always possible to contact the service in a timely manner. When we made telephone calls to the service, they were not always answered and often went to an answer machine or voicemail, and we did not always receive a quick reply to the messages we left. When we emailed the service, we did not always receive a quick response. This meant we could not be assured people and their relatives could always access the service when they needed to.

The provider told us they would improve the service’s response time by ensuring telephone lines were appropriately staffed/covered.

People and their relatives had good outcomes and experiences of the service regardless of their needs, backgrounds or protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People and their relatives felt confident the service was genuinely interested in their views.

A person told us, “I truly believe that [name of carer] wants to make a difference to my life. The last company I had, the carers were always late or didn’t turn up and couldn’t wait to get out of here. [Name of carer] is so, so different”.

There was no evidence all people and/or their relatives had been supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. There were no end-of-life care plans in place for people and there was no recorded evidence the provider had discussed this with all people and/or their relatives.

A person’s relative said, “They [staff] discussed end-of-life two years ago and we discussed whether to have a do not resuscitate certificate in place as well”. However, there was no record of this in the person’s care plan and no evidence the provider had reviewed an end-of-life life plan with the person.