Archived: Radis Community Care Wolverhampton

The inspection took place on 27 and 28 July 2016 and was announced.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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 was run.

People enjoyed the company of staff and said they found the staff to be kind and helpful. People told us they regularly were cared for by staff they knew well and had built good relationships with them. People said they could rely on staff to provide the care they needed at the times agreed. Staff cared for people in ways which helped them to maintain their independence. People told us staff treated them with respect and dignity and encouraged them to decide how they would like their care to be planned and given.

People were cared for in ways which promoted their safety and plans to manage people’s individual risks were in place. Staff understood what actions to take if they had any concerns for people’s safety. Where people wanted assistance to take their medicines this was given by staff who knew how to do this safely. Risks to people’s health were assessed and people were assisted to receive healthcare support when this was needed. The registered manager had worked with other organisations and plans had been developed to help people to stay as safe as possible.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to care for people and were supported to obtain further training to meet people’s needs. People were encouraged to have enough to drink and eat by staff who knew their preferences and dietary needs.

Staff understood how to make sure people were in agreement for care to be given. Where people were not able to make all of their own decisions the views of their relatives and other professionals were listened to. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated as their needs changed, so they would continue to receive the care they needed in the best way for them.

People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. Systems for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt.

Staff understood how the registered manager expected people’s care to be given so people would receive the care they needed in the way they preferred. Staff told us they felt support by the registered manager and senior staff.

People and their relatives were encouraged to provide their views on the quality of the service. The provider and registered manager checked the quality of the care people received. Changes had been introduced to develop people’s care and the service further.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. As part of our inspection we spoke with eight people to include their relatives, where they were not able to talk with us directly. We spoke with three members of staff who provided care to people in their homes. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. We found that safeguarding procedures were in place and the three members of staff we spoke with understood how to safeguard people they supported.

We found that policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This is legislation that makes provision relating to persons who lack capacity, and how decisions should be made in their best interests when they do so. At the time of our inspection no applications had needed to be made. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

All of the people we spoke with told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected by care staff. People were supported to make choices and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

We found that systems were in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents and complaints. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

We saw that risk management plans were up-to-date and staff said they received updates when people's needs changed. People were not put at unnecessary risk. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure staff had information they needed so that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

We found that staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people who used the service. We saw that the service monitored staff attendance at people's homes to ensure people were consistently supported with their care needs.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and their families where required. People were involved in making decisions about their plans of care. We saw that people's specialist health and care needs had been identified and met where required. All of the people we spoke with said that their care plans reflected their needs. All of the people we spoke with told us they were involved in planning their care.

Is the service caring?

We asked people who used the service and their relatives for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was very positive in all cases, for example: 'I am very happy. The carers are punctual, polite and look after me well' and: 'The carers are excellent. They show [my relative] the utmost care and always go the extra mile'.

People who used the service and their relatives who were involved with their care, took part in telephone based monitoring reviews and direct care reviews. People received annual surveys to give feedback to the service about care they received. We saw and were told by people who used the service, that where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were dealt with by the service.

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at examples of investigations which had been completed in line with the complaints policy. We saw that complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary.

The registered manager and office based staff team completed the staff rotas. They told us and we saw they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

The service worked well with other healthcare professionals and external agencies to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw that Radis Community Care Wolverhampton had a 'Recruitment and Selection of Staff' policy in place. We reviewed nine personnel files and discussed the recruitment process with the registered manager. In the nine files we viewed the recruitment policy had been followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made.