Background to this inspection
Updated
11 June 2019
This inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type: Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) provides care and support to people living in an ‘extra care’ housing scheme. Extra care housing is purpose built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. People live in their own apartment’s which are rented or owned by people. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care service.
There was a registered manager in post. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure staff would be available and we would have access to records. We visited the site on 20 May 2019.
What we did: Before the inspection, the registered manager completed a provider information return [PIR]. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
We looked at information we held about the service, including notifications they had made to us about important events. We also looked at other information sent to us from stakeholders, for example, the local authority and members of the public.
During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives. In addition, we spoke with four members of the staff team plus a senior team leader and the registered manager.
We sampled care records for three people who used the service. We also looked at four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as complaints, compliments, accidents and incident reports.
The registered manager sent us additional evidence which included results from surveys.
Updated
11 June 2019
About the service: Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own apartments within an extra care housing scheme known as Meadow Court. It provides a service to older people. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people receiving personal care.
Not everyone using Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) received a regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks relation to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were happy with the level of care and support they received from staff. They told us they were well cared for and felt safe while receiving care. The registered manager as well as the staff team were aware of their responsibility to report any actual or suspected abuse.
Although people and their relatives felt listened to we found improvement was needed regarding to ensure the registered manager was aware of any concerns or complaints raised about the service in order for these to always be investigated.
Risks associated to people’s care were assessed to provide guidance to staff on how to reduce these and enable staff to meet individual care needs. People received their medicines as prescribed although some improvement was needed to ensure instruction regarding changes to people’s medicines were effectively communicated. Care plans were detailed, and person centred to match the individual needs of people using the service. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs in a consistent way and provide a reliable service. provided by staff who people were familiar with. Recruitment procedures were in place to assist in the safe appointment of staff who were suitable to work with people who used the service.
Newly appointed staff undertook shadowing experiences with more experienced members of the team to introduce them to people and their role. Staff received induction training and ongoing training to meet the needs of the people they supported. Staff had knowledge about infection control procedures and used protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection.
People were supported as needed with meals and drinks as well as with their medicines. The registered provider had worked alongside healthcare professionals. Staff had contacted healthcare professionals as well as emergency services as needed to ensure people’s needs were met.
People were treated with respect and dignity and could make choices about their care and support. Staff ensured people consented to care being given.
People and their relatives told us any concerns or complaints made would be listened to. Staff felt well supported by the management. The provider had systems in place to monitor the service.
Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection since a change in provider registration with the Care Quality Commission [CQC].
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date of the provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission.
We found the service met the requirements for ‘Good’. One area was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. The overall raring of the service was ‘Good’.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we received about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.