Archived: FitzRoy Supported Living - Norfolk Central

As part of this inspection we spoke with four people who use the service, the registered manager and four care staff. We visited people at two of the six shared tenancies where the agency was offering support. Some people were not able to tell us verbally about their care so we also observed how they were being supported.

We reviewed records relating to the management of the service. This included five care plans and daily records, quality audits and surveys, staff training records, duty rosters and medication records.

The summary is based on our observations during inspection, speaking with people who use and work in the service, feedback from other professionals and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect by the staff. They told us that they liked the staff who worked with them. Their needs were assessed, including risks to which they were exposed. There was guidance for staff about how to minimise these and we observed that staff followed the guidance, for example when supporting one person to use the garden safely.

Staff were trained in measures to control infection and were provided with equipment such as gloves and aprons, to minimise the risk of infection spreading.

Staff also had training to administer medicines safely. There were regular checks in place to ensure that this happened.

At our last inspection we found that there were shortfalls in the way records were kept, which compromised the safety of people using the service. At this inspection we found that action had been taken to improve. Staff had accessible and up to date information about how to meet people's needs safely.

Is the service effective?

People were involved, as far as practicable, in planning their care. One person told us how staff spoke to them, "'every week'" about the things they wanted to do. Specialist needs for example, support with eating and drinking and mobility, were identified in care plans. We observed that staff followed the guidance that had been included within plans. Staff were able to tell us about the needs of people they supported and the information was consistent with what was contained in people's records.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Comments in relatives' surveys were complimentary about the care staff. One relative wrote that a person received support from "'brilliant staff." Another wrote, "The staff really care for [person's name]." They said, "I have every confidence in them."

Is the service responsive?

People received support to join in activities within their homes and outside in their local communities.

Where people's needs changed as a result of their health or advancing age, their care plans were adapted to reflect changes and what staff needed to do to support them properly.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a system for assessing and improving the quality of the service. Action plans arising from this process showed what was done to address any shortfalls. The system also took into account the views of people using the service and their representatives. As a result, the quality of the service was improved where necessary.

One relative's survey described the manager of the service as, "...tremendously supportive and approachable in all matters."

People told us how they were involved in activities within and outside their home and how staff encouraged them with their independence. They told us about appointments they had with other professionals to ensure their health was maintained. We saw that outcomes of these were recorded. This showed people's health was promoted.

We noted that the safety of the building housing the agency office was checked (although some of the checks were slightly overdue). Although the agency office was upstairs, the building was accessible to people with mobility difficulties and staff could meet with them on the ground floor.

Staff were properly recruited and checked to ensure they were not barred from working with vulnerable people. We saw that people using the service could be involved in interviewing prospective staff members if they wanted to.

We found that there were proper systems for checking that the quality of the service was being maintained and for asking people what they thought about it. People were also encouraged and supported to make complaints if they needed to.

We noted that care records were not well organised and not consistently kept up to date. This meant that there was a risk that staff would not be aware of the most recent information and of people's current needs so may not be aware of the appropriate support. Assessments of risk had mostly been updated so that staff were aware of how to minimise these and support people safely.

We spoke with relatives of three people using the service, all of whom were very complimentary about the care their relatives received. They were kept informed by the provider. If, for example, their relative was unwell they were advised and kept up to date with their progress. Relatives were asked their views on the services provided and invited to meetings.

We saw that records kept were detailed and specific to individuals. People were supported to participate in their communities and enjoyed a range of activities.

Staff were well trained and encouraged to further develop their skills as appropriate. The provider took steps to ensure the services they provided protected people from abuse and were what people wanted and expected.