Fam Daily Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received personalised care, which was recorded in their care plans and reflected their wishes and preferences. Care plans were reviewed and updated in a timely manner. People were able to express their views about the care they received and were given the opportunity to regularly review their care plan if any changes needed to be made. Staff had a good understanding of the care needs of people they supported. The provider was able to provide information about the service in a format that was suitable for people to understand.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives confirmed people received person-centred care. A relative told us their relative was no longer using the service and said, “[Relative] loved it there. Unfortunately, [relative] is not enjoying the new place as much.”

The registered manager told us, “We take person-centred care seriously. We make sure staff read the care plan before they begin delivering care. Even when they are shadowing, they have access to the care plan. We encourage staff to spend quality time with the person. The care notes and the audits show me if the right things are being done. We usually do spot checks, and we do monthly supervisions. When we speak to [staff], we understand what is going on. There is always a supervisor around.” Staff understood how to deliver a person-centred care service. A staff member told us, “In care, the care must be person-centred as long as it is not against their wellbeing. I am not going to force anything on [a person]. I can only guide and direct them preventing them from harm.”

We observed people were provided with a person-centred service. For example, a person’s choice was to get up later in the morning, so the allocated staff member started work later in accordance with the person’s preference. Another example was a person who chose not to participate in activities with the other people using the service, so staff engaged with them separately.

People were involved, where able, in decisions about their care which helped them to retain choice and control over how their care and support was delivered.

The registered manager confirmed with us that people and relatives were involved in the care planning process which took into account people’s care preferences, protected characteristics and activities in the community. They told us they worked jointly with other agencies to ensure continuity of care. Staff understood their role in relation to providing safe care in line with people’s preferences and working jointly with other professionals. They understood the importance of good communication with each other and relatives. We observed staff engaging people in individual and group activities including encouraging people to participate in activities outside of the service.

The provider had good links and worked closely with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

Records showed regular meetings were held with staff and relatives which included discussions about people’s wellbeing and progress towards achieving goals, people’s preferences, activities, and protected characteristics.

Relatives told us the service was good at communicating and providing information. They confirmed they attended meetings held for families.

The registered manager understood how to make information accessible for people. They told us, “We would make sure we have software so people can listen to [written information]. My staff would read to them.” They mentioned they had seen braille used on YouTube but could not remember what it was called. The registered manager told us for people with a hearing impairment, “Staff would write and use signs. We make sure we have eye contact and get close to them [for lip reading] or speak at the side of them [for speaking near the ear that can hear].” The registered manager told us for people with a learning disability they, “Would not use long sentences and use pictures and signs.” Staff understood how to meet people’s communication needs. A staff member told us, “I will use sign language if the person is deaf or use a picture of what I am going to do. If they are blind, I will read [the information] to them.”

People’s communication support needs were documented in care plans including if people had sight or hearing needs. Care plans noted where people needed support dealing with official correspondence.

Relatives told us communication between them and the service was positive. A relative told us the service, “Always made it clear if there was anything I needed, to raise it and this was always taken on board.” This relative explained they once raised a concern which was resolved satisfactorily. Another relative told us, “There was a box where you could put in complaints, or you could also speak to the manager, and she would change it. If you had an issue, [the service] would resolve it.” Relatives told us there were regular meetings for relatives and people using the service. A relative explained families were welcome to attend meetings and were asked what they were happy and unhappy with. Another relative told us topics discussed at the meetings included, quality of life, activities, events, and new menus.

The registered manager told us that they tried their best to put anything right that was raised with them. They gave an example of the relative who was not happy with the food given to their relative and how they worked with them to resolve the issue. The registered manager told us meetings were held with people using the service and relatives to give them the opportunity to give feedback about the service. They planned to ask relatives to complete feedback forms. Staff understood the process for dealing with complaints. A staff member told us, “In the first place, I would listen to [person] and if it is something I can correct, I would correct it but if not, I would take it to my manager to address it.”

The provider had a system in place to capture complaints and compliments. We checked the complaints log and saw there were 2 complaints made in the last year by a relative in relation to food. Records showed appropriate action was taken and the complainant was satisfied with the response. We noted that lessons learnt from complaints were documented. Records showed the service had received 6 compliments in 2024. For example, a compliment received stated, “I really love your service. When it’s time for me to come into a care home, I hope I can get into something like yours. It’s small and feels like home.”

People were respected and treated equally regardless of their abilities, lifestyle and beliefs.

Staff had a good understanding of the care needs for people who used the service. They were able to tell us what people did and did not like and how they liked to be supported. Staff had developed a positive caring relationship with people who used the service.

The provider had links with the wider community in order to help ensure a joined up approach to people’s support.

Staff ensured people had equal opportunities, respected their values and protected them from discrimination.

Feedback from relatives was positive and no concerns were expressed in relation to equity of experiences and outcomes. Relatives told us they could speak to the registered manager or staff at any time to give their views, make suggestions or to raise a concern.

The registered manager told us, “We ensure people are treated equally. We will make certain we have certain foods. We give choices like activities. Two people have cultural needs. One person gets involved in their religious celebrations with family and staff support.” Staff understood how to deliver equity in experiences and outcomes. A staff member told us, “I have been told about maintaining [people’s] rights. I don’t have the right to deprive them of their rights. People come from different backgrounds. I am obliged to listen to them. Spiritually, that is part of their rights. Their rights must be maintained.” Another staff member said, “People have the right choose the religion they want. It is about the person’s wants and what the care plan says.”

The processes in place supported people to have equity in experience and outcomes. Care plans documented people’s protected characteristics and goals were set to enable their needs around this to be met.

People were supported to express their wishes for when they reached the end of their life. We noted people had said they wished to be resuscitated should the need arise. People chose not to discuss the topic of end of life care but said they may wish to do so in the future.

The registered manager explained that although there was currently nobody using the service who was at the end of their life, they would be able to deliver end of life care with support from community services should the need arise.

At the time of the inspection, there was nobody requiring end of life care. Staff had received training in end of life care. People’s end of life care wishes were discussed but care plans noted people using the service, and their families had chosen not to have these documented yet but may wish to do so in the future. We noted that it was documented on people’s care plans, if there was a need, they wished to be resuscitated. There was corroborating information displayed on the office wall noting that nobody had a DNACPR in place in accordance with their wishes.