You are here

Archived: Fitzwilliam Court

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 August 2012
Date of Publication: 8 September 2012
Inspection Report published 8 September 2012 PDF | 50.29 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 28/08/2012, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

People we spoke with understood the choices available to them and said they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People told us that care workers knew them well and the support provided was individual and based on their choice. They said that they were always asked their opinion and felt listened to.

People confirmed that they had copies of their care plan at their home so that they had access to these. We saw copies of these when we visited people in their apartments.

All of the people spoken with said that care staff were always respectful and polite. People said they were always offered choices when they received support. One person said, “Staff always ask what I would like to wear or what I would like for my lunch and do not just assume.”

We heard staff offering people choices such as what time they would like their lunch or what they would like for lunch.

People said that the service was reliable, although two people said sometimes they were not always informed if their carer was likely to be late. One person and their relatives said that on occasions staff didn’t always stay the agreed length of time. Other people said staff did stay the agreed length of time and sometimes stayed a little longer for a chat.

Other evidence

We checked three people’s care records and saw people’s care needs had been assessed. People we spoke with confirmed that they, along with their family and the manager from Fitzwilliam Court were involved with the assessment of their needs before agreeing to the care package.

When we spoke to staff they were able to tell us how people were supported with their care needs. The staff knew people very well and were aware of how to respond to them.

We found all of the care plans were detailed in relation to people’s preferences and choices. People and /or their representatives said they were aware of care plans and that they were involved in discussions and reviews about their care. This meant that people could have a say in how they received care or support. This consultation was confirmed and recorded as having taken place in the care plans we checked.

Staff told us that the issue of privacy and dignity was discussed at all training events.

They were able to describe how they maintained people's privacy, dignity and confidentiality and how important this was for people.

The provider should note that there were no clear assurance systems in place to monitor the punctuality of staff calls or the length time staff stayed and provided care and support at each call. The time of staff arrival and departure in the majority of people’s daily records checked were either incomplete or only half completed.