Radis Community Care (Maritime House)

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The provider had developed policies in line with best practice guidance and kept them updated to reflect the most current recommendations. The provider had effective systems in place to support people with their nutrition and hydration. They had utilised their electronic care planning system, to monitor people’s food and fluid intake where required. Staff had escalated any concerns around eating and drinking to professionals, as appropriate. This helped to ensure people had appropriate support to meet their needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The provider had developed policies in line with best practice guidance and kept them updated to reflect the most current recommendations. The provider had effective systems in place to support people with their nutrition and hydration. They had utilised their electronic care planning system, to monitor people’s food and fluid intake where required. Staff had escalated any concerns around eating and drinking to professionals, as appropriate. This helped to ensure people had appropriate support to meet their needs.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Improvements were needed to ensure there were established working and information sharing agreements between the provider and key stakeholders. The registered manager detailed issues they had experienced in obtaining updates from visiting district nurses, GP’s, pharmacies and other professionals. This meant there was no formal information sharing agreements in place between these stakeholders. We also recommended the provider develop supplementary, concise care plans, which people could take with them when moving across different services, such as when they were admitted to hospital. This would help ensure key information could be passed to relevant stakeholders in the event of these circumstances. The provider had utilised their electronic care planning system to improve communication between staff. This meant key messages and changes to care plans could be shared with staff in ‘real time’ to promote effective care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People told us staff had a good understanding of their health needs and they received the support they needed to promote good health. People’s care plans detailed information about their specific health conditions and how staff could provide effective support to manage these needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and met the expectations of people. People told us they had agreed desired outcomes to their care. This helped ensure people and staff were working in a consistent way towards a shared goal. The provider used information recorded in people’s daily care notes to provide reports for professionals upon request. This helped to demonstrate the need for increases or decreases in people’s commissioned care hours. This meant people received the correct levels of care required.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, staff knowledge and good practice around obtaining valid consent were not fully embedded. Since our last inspection, senior staff had developed a better understanding around consent. This included reducing restrictive practices, the legal powers of individuals appointed to act on people’s behalf and how to support people who made unwise decisions about their care. However, both care and senior staff acknowledged they were not always confident in applying The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) to their everyday practices when gaining consent to care. Some examples of capacity assessments completed reflected this. In one case, the provider had completed a full mental capacity assessment in spite of capacity already being established. The registered manager had recognised this was an area of development. They had attended additional external MCA training and planned to appoint an MCA ‘champion’, who would provide support and guidance to staff to embed good practice.