Archived: FitzRoy Support at Home - Norfolk

People were satisfied with the way staff supported them. Although some people using the service were not able to remember whether they had been involved in drawing up their plans of care, relatives confirmed that they were involved. They felt that the staff team were receptive to suggestions and "...all on the same wavelength." People using the service told us staff asked what they wanted to do. One person told us that staff "... know what they are doing..." and, "I'm as happy as I can be." They said they felt "...safe..." with the carers and told us that if anyone was thinking about using FitzRoy they would "...give them a good reference."

There were systems in place to ensure that the building in which the agency's office was situated was maintained safely. It was accessible to people with mobility difficulties.

People were able to be involved in recruiting the staff who were to support them. Proper checks were made to ensure that staff employed did not present a risk to vulnerable people. People spoken with told us they felt safe with the staff who worked with them. People also told us that they received support from regular staff, so that they had been able to get to know staff and staff knew how to support them.

People were able to comment about the quality of the service and were asked for their views. They told us they were also confident that they could contact the agency's office, including 'out of hours' and that office staff would "...sort out..." anything that they were concerned about. One person told us, "If they can help, they will."

For this review, the manager provided us with an action plan showing how the service would improve. She also provided evidence that she had also submitted to her line manager, showing that the action had been taken. This was in the form of a schedule showing when meetings for appraisals, supervision and development had taken place or were planned. This showed that staff had improved opportunities for support, to discuss their work and to evaluate their performance or training needs.

The manager also provided information about a log that was introduced to ensure telephone contact with staff was recorded if meetings were not face to face. This meant that people using the service were cared for by staff who received appropriate support and development to ensure they were competent in their roles.

Staff told us that they had opportunities for training and most said they felt well supported by the agency's management team. However, support and development meetings to talk about their work were not always arranged regularly. None of the staff spoken with, or whose records we saw, had received an annual appraisal. Some training was shown as 'in progress' for prolonged periods after it needed to be renewed.

Family members told us that they felt the staff were respectful and encouraged people with their independence and opportunities to go out and about. They felt that people's needs were met by the staff. None of the family members spoken with had any concerns about the way staff treated their relatives.

There were systems in place to check the quality and safety of the service so that people were not placed at avoidable risks.