Radis Community Care (Baird Lodge)

Radis Community Care (Baird Lodge) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in a specialist 'extra care' housing scheme in Ely. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 21 people were receiving the regulated activity personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were happy with the service and the staff that provided their care. People felt safe because staff knew what they were doing, and supported people in the way people wanted.

Staff assessed and reduced people’s risks as much as possible. There were enough staff to support people with their care and support needs. The provider carried out key recruitment checks on potential new staff before they started work.

People received their medicines and staff knew how these should be given. Staff used protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons to prevent the spread of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff had not completed training courses which they felt would be beneficial to their job role. These courses are available by the provider for staff to attend, however there had been no oversight to ensure that staff had completed them. Not all staff felt they received good support from a manager.

People liked the staff that supported them. Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people’s privacy was respected.

Staff kept care records up to date and included national guidance if relevant. People’s care plans were person centred and contained enough information for staff to know what was important to the person they were supporting.

The service had recently appointed a new manager. There had been at least four changes of manager in the last 12 months and this had been unsettling for both people using the service and the staff team. Health professionals also commented on the impact that this had caused to people and staff.

People were asked their views of the service and action was taken to change any areas that they were not happy with. Concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issues raised.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the last inspection, which took place on 6 June 2014, the service was rated good. At this inspection, on 22 June 2017, we found the service remained good. At the time of our inspection, 14 people were receiving care.

People continued to be cared for by staff who provided care and support that ensured people's safety and welfare and took into account each person’s individual preferences. People were supported to manage their medicines safely.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited and employed only after appropriate checks had been completed. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were sufficiently skilled, experienced and supported to enable them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were effectively supported with decision making and supported to have as much choice and control of their lives as possible. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet with suitable food and fluid. People were supported to access healthcare when they required it.

People received care and support from staff who were caring, kind and friendly. Staff treated people with respect and dignity. Staff knew the people they supported well, and understood, and met, their individual preferences and support needs. People’s care plans provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person. People were encouraged develop individual interests and hobbies.

The provider continued to have a robust complaints procedure in place. The service was well managed. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service people received and continually improve the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, staff and other professional s told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe with the staff who provided their care. Staff had undertaken training relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. They demonstrated that they would report any concerns appropriately.

When we reviewed people's care records we found that that although they all contained a risk assessment form, these had not all been updated or completed fully. This meant there was a risk that people were not safe because risks might not have been identified.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with four of the twelve people who received care from this service. They were all complimentary about the care they received and said it met their needs. One person told us they were, 'Quite satisfied... They [the staff] are good ' They come at a regular time and that suits me fine.' Another person told us, 'They all know what help I need.'

We also spoke with two external professionals who had regular contact with people who received a service. They were also complimentary about the care provided.

However, there was a risk that care would not be provided as people preferred or needed, because care plans had not been completed for staff to refer to. In addition, we found the information provided for staff was in three cases inconsistent and out of date.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff providing the service to them were caring. One person told us the staff were, 'Lovely, you can't find better.' People told us that staff did ask them about the care they needed. They said staff listened to them and acted on their preferences. However, as staff did not have up to date guidance to refer to, this meant there was a risk that care would not be provided appropriately.

Is the service responsive?

People that we spoke with told us that where they had requested changes to the time, or the way, their care was provided, this had been accommodated by the service. A care manager, not employed by the provider, told us that that the staff recognised when people's needs changed and responded appropriately. For example, by assisting people to access appropriate health care.

However, because people's needs and the care provided to them were not regularly reviewed there was a risk that the provider would not respond appropriately to people's changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

People receiving a service told us that a senior member of staff regularly checked that they were satisfied with the service provided to them. Senior staff told us this was an informal process and no records were kept or analysis made.

Although the provider had quality assurance policies in place, which included the use of various audits, these were not being followed. We found little information had been gathered in relation to the standard of the service provided since the provider registered in November 2013.

Staff told us they felt supported by senior staff. However, we found not all staff had received all the necessary training. In addition, some staff had not received any formal supervision to carry out the role for which they were employed since the provider registered with us.

A registered manager was in post at the service. However, we noted they only spent one day each week at the service because they managed three other, similar, services.

We found that the provider was not compliant with the regulations in four out of five areas we assessed. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.