Archived: Fitzwilliam Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 and managers did not treat people with kindness. They did not ensure systems and guidance supported staff to provide care that was unrushed, upheld their dignity and privacy and fully met their needs. However, overall, staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed staff speaking with people respectfully and thoughtfully. People knew the staff team well and we observed natural conversation with jokes and laughter being shared. A person told us, “Most staff are kind and thoughtful.” Another person said, “[Staff] are quite attentive.” While relatives had concerns about leaders, they agreed most staff were kind. A relative said, “[Staff] are caring. They know about my [family member]. They know what’s going on. They are listened to and valued.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They assessed people’s strengths, abilities, and culture however, care plans did not always reflect this and offered generic information rather than information about that individual and how their culture and abilities impacted them personally. For example, information about how people like to spend their time was contradictory. The level of support people needed for eating and drinking was unclear. There was no evidence people had been supported to identify their dreams and goals. People told us they wanted to go outside of the home into the community but were unable due to a lack of transport and staffing. Despite our findings, relatives felt people were treated as individuals as staff respected their religious beliefs.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence. Records did not evidence how people knew their rights or always had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People told us they did not always get their preferred choice of staff gender for personal care support. This had an impact on people’s feelings of dignity. However, when it came to day-to-day choices, people told us staff encouraged them to do what they could for themselves to retain their independence and were given choices about what to eat or wear. One person told us, “I like to see to myself if I can, and can dress myself mostly. I decide where I go for meals but I’ll sit in my room instead of being on my own in a lounge.”

People were encouraged to develop friendships but there was no evidence of people being supported to understand different aspects of relationships and consent to them. Staff told us they did not discuss sexuality and gender preferences with people as they did not feel comfortable doing so and had not received training in this area.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress and appeared to know people well. Despite this, people told us they often had to wait up to 30 minutes for support to use the toilet in the mornings or to have a drink. One person told us, “It can be quite a while, maybe 10-15 minutes at the most. Daytime takes longer for staff as they seem so busy.” A relative said, “It took 15 minutes to answer the buzzer.” Records and observations showed at busy times of day and weekends there were insufficient staffing levels deployed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff told us the provider and management team supported them well and considered their workload and how stresses of their personal life could impact them. The provider ensured staff had access to a support line if needed. For staff who had come from abroad, the provider supported them to access accommodation and local facilities to ensure they were safe and settled well.