You are here

Fortis HouseTopaz Care and Support Company Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 June 2018

This inspection took place on 23 and 27 April 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service since its registration on 12 December 2016.

Fortis House, also known as Topaz Care and Support Company Limited, provides care and support to people living in two ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our inspection four people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Staff were positive about the leadership and culture of the service.

During this inspection we found the service met requirements and is rated Good.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew how to deal with emergencies and report incidents and accidents.

There were arrangements for managing medicines and mitigating risks to people using the service. The provider had robust staff recruitment procedures in place and people received their personal care and support at the time they expected it, by staff who were punctual. There were cover arrangements in place for staff absence.

Staff had a good understanding of infection control procedures and used personal protective clothing such as aprons and gloves when carrying our personal care or meal preparation to prevent the spread of infection.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care and support needs. People’s support plans had detailed guidance for staff regarding their preferences.

People told us the service was effective in meeting their needs and carried out an initial assessment to plan their care and support. People using the service had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their needs. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs.

People made choices for themselves where they had the capacity to do so and the service operated in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training and supervision to support them in their role and attended staff meetings to share and receive information.

People told us the service was caring and spoke positively about staff. Staff knew the people they were supporting well, respected their privacy and encouraged independence.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. The service had robust systems in place to seek and analyse the views of people using the service. Recordkeeping was up to date and consistent with protecting people’s privacy.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided. The registered provider upheld all of their responsibilities to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) by submitting statutory notifications, such as serious incidents that had taken place.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 June 2018

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe.

Appropriate safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities for reporting any safeguarding concerns.

Identified risks to people were mitigated with clear guidance for staff.

Medicines were managed safely.

Processes were in place to minimise the risk of infection.

There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service and robust recruitment processes were in place.

The service demonstrated how they learnt from accidents and incidents.



Updated 21 June 2018

The service was effective. Assessments of people�s needs were carried out prior to providing care and support.

Staff received training and support to carry out their role.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people had choice and their rights were protected.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services when they needed them.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs.



Updated 21 June 2018

The service was caring. People told us staff were caring and respected their privacy.

Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people�s dignity, privacy and independence.



Updated 21 June 2018

The service was responsive. People�s preferences were reflected in their support plans.

People were supported to engage in activities where this was part of their support package.

The service had an easy read complaints procedure.



Updated 21 June 2018

The service was well led. There was a registered manager in place. Staff were positive about the culture and leadership of the service.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. This included seeking the views of people using the service.