The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Radis Community Care (Oak Tree House ECH) Also known as Oak Tree House Extra Care Housing

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

10 Spey Road, Tilehurst, Reading, Berkshire, RG30 4DZ (0118) 942 0702

Provided and run by:
G P Homecare Limited

All Inspections

8 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 8 July 2015 and was announced.

Radis Community Care (Oak Tree House ECH) is a domiciliary care agency. Support is provided to people living in the Oak Tree House Extra Care Scheme. The service supports people with a range of needs and operates from an office within the housing complex. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to twenty nine people.

There was a registered manager for the service. However, we were told they were on long term leave and that an interim manager was managing the day to day running of the service supported by the regional director. 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.

People told us that they felt safe with staff and would be confident to raise any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust, medicines were managed safely and there were sufficient staff to provide safe, effective care.

There were procedures in place to manage risks to people and staff. Staff were aware of how to deal with emergency situations and knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through processes that they understood well.

Staff received an induction and spent time working with experienced members of staff before working alone with people. Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs.

People said they felt listened to and were happy with the service provided. They told us that staff treated them with kindness and respected and involved them in decisions about their care.

People’s needs were reviewed regularly. A new format of care plans were being implemented by the service to promote person-centred care. Up to date information was communicated to staff to ensure they could provide appropriate care. Staff contacted healthcare professionals in a timely manner if there were concerns about a person’s wellbeing.

People told us they had been asked for their views on the service and were able to raise concerns and complaints if they needed to. They felt confident that the interim manager would take action if necessary.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There were various formal methods used for assessing and improving the quality of care. Feedback was sought from people and care records were audited. Complaints were addressed and action taken according to the provider’s policy.

The interim manager had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to gaining consent before providing support and care.

10, 13 June 2014

During a routine inspection

One inspector visited the agency and gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

On the first day of our inspection we visited the service and on the second day, we contacted people who use the service, by telephone.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who use the service, their relatives, the staff and management supporting them and from looking at records.

We were aware the manager registered for this location has left the company. The provider has appointed a new manager who was going through the registration process. In this report, where we refer to the manager, we are referring to the newly appointed manager.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff who came to support them. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt their family members were safe in the service. Safeguarding policies and procedures we reviewed were robust. Staff told us they understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

People who use the service and relatives told us they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, safeguarding and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff knew how to help people to remain safe and risks to people were reduced to a minimum. People who use the service had choice and control of their lives and in how their support was planned.

Staff training arrangements were in place but not always followed. Although training was monitored, process to ensure that staff had appropriate skills and knowledge were not always updated. There was a risk of people's needs not being met at all times because staff did not always have the right skills and experience.

Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Following a recent Supreme Court judgement this legislation now applies to supported living settings. We spoke about this with the provider. They were aware of this judgement relating to deprivation of liberty. None of the people using the service were subject to DoLS. However, two people were not able to leave the service without staff support as they needed specialist equipment. The manager undertook to make contact with the local authority DoLS team, regarding the implications to make sure people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in planning their own care and support. Any specific needs were identified and noted in the care plan. People told us they had a care plan with their up to date needs and support identified.

The service did not always make sure staff were trained appropriately so they could meet people's individual needs in a timely manner. Staff supervision and the quality of care provided was not always monitored regularly.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care they received. They said the staff respected their privacy and wishes, they made comments such as: 'Staff are attentive and gentle, absolutely fine' and 'Yes, they respect me and help me do things'. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt their family members were supported appropriately by the service in general.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who use the service about the staff who support them. The feedback they gave us was positive including: 'staff are polite" and "if I am not happy I can tell them and they sort it". Most of the relatives we spoke with told us staff were caring for their family member well.

Staff told us how they cared for the people who use the service. People told us they had not completed any surveys. However, they told us they were able to speak to the management or staff to give feedback about the service they received. People told us their preferences were acted upon.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they knew how to make a complaint or raise an issue with staff and managers. They knew how to contact the provider if they needed help or advice.

We looked at investigations carried out in regards to issues or complaints raised. We saw actions and investigations were carried out. Four complaints were ongoing at the time of our inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had some quality assurance systems in place. Records we looked at showed the service had processes to identify problems and procedures to act on concerns identified. However, the service did not always seek feedback from people using the service, relatives, staff and other professionals.

Staff told us they were supported in their job which helped to make sure people who use the service received good standard of care and support. They felt they could raise issues or concerns with the management and it would be acted upon it.