You are here

Radis Community Care (Baird Lodge) Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 22 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Radis Community Care (Baird Lodge) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service only provides care to people who live within Baird Lodge Extra Care Scheme.

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.

Inspection carried out on 18 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Radis Community Care (Baird Lodge) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service only provides care to people who live within Baird Lodge Extra Care Scheme. At the time of our inspection 21 people were receiving care.

The service had a registered manager in place since March 2015. 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 is run.

Our last inspection took place on 6 June 2014. As a result of our findings we asked the provider to make improvements to care and welfare, the management of medicines, staff training and supervision, and quality assurance. We received an action plan detailing how and when the required improvements would be made by. During this inspection we found that the necessary improvements had been made and that people’s assessed needs were safely met.

Staff were only employed after the provider carried out satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were trained and well supported by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.

People’s health and care needs were effectively met and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. People received their prescribed medicines appropriately and medicines were stored in a safe way.

The CQC monitors the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. We found people’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, caring and respectful. Staff respected people’s dignity. People and their relatives were encouraged to express their views on the service provided.

People, and their relatives, were involved in their care assessments and reviews. Care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person that met their needs. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure that the change was effective.

The registered manager managed three other services in addition to this one. The registered manager was supported by a team leader and care workers. People, relatives and staff told us the service was well run. People and their relatives told us that care workers and senior staff were approachable. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service in various ways both formally and informally. There had been improvements to the service since our last inspection.

Inspection carried out on 6 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions we always ask:

• 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.