• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Radian Support DCA

Parkside House, 33-39 Sheet Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1BY (01753) 747372

Provided and run by:
Radian Support Limited

All Inspections

11 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At an inspection on 1 October 2013 we found the provider had not completed all relevant recruitment checks before staff began work. In three of the 11 recruitment files we looked at gaps in records of employment were not explained.

At our inspection on 11 March 2014 we found the provider had taken action to address the breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. They had completed all required recruitment checks for staff employed by the service. A full employment history was recorded for care workers in each recruitment file we looked at. We saw evidence that gaps in employment history previously identified were investigated and an appropriate written explanation recorded.

We did not speak with people who use the service or care workers during this inspection. We spoke with the person managing the service on the day of our inspection. The location did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection. This is a requirement for registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The manager told us they had started the application process to become a registered manager with the CQC.

1 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 13 people who use the service and 12 relatives of people who use the service. We sent a questionnaire to 61 people who use the service and their relatives to ensure we had sufficient feedback on the service. We received a total of 11 responses to the questionnaire. These were from six people who use the service and five relatives.

People were complimentary about the service, and praised the staff who supported them. One person said “I always feel better after their visit.” Ratings of the service through questionnaire responses noted nine people and their relatives felt care and support was good or excellent. The lowest score, from one relative and one person who uses the service, was satisfactory.

Four relatives told us they had some concerns about the number of changes in staff supporting people, particularly when providing support at weekends. One relative told us “There is too little staff stability. There is a constant coming and going of carers.” Four people who use the service told us they enjoyed the variety of staff supporting them.

Care plans reflected people’s wishes and preferences. They guided staff to support people safely and as they wished. One person told us “I like the independence we have.” A relative said “The staff are brilliant. I’m really happy: X is settled and content. They choose their own activities and have lots to do.” One support worker told us “We encourage people to be independent, and keep people mixing in society.”

People were involved in agreeing the level of care and support required. They chose who to involve in reviews of their care needs. Care plans reflected the current needs of the individual, assessed risks and documented agreed changes. One relative said “Staff interact well with people.”

People’s care plans included health action plans, and documented appointments attended and treatment provided. Staff liaised effectively to ensure people’s support and care needs were appropriately managed across a diverse range of health care providers. One relative told us “Staff worked above and beyond duty to support X when they were ill. They treat all the people really well, and never complain. I would give them the highest praise possible.”

Recruitment checks were undertaken. We found some of the information required in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 was not available. We did not see explanations of gaps in employment history, but other requirements such as Disclosure and Barring Service checks and proof of identity were completed appropriately.

The provider sought feedback from people who use the service, their relatives and health providers to evaluate the standard of support provided. They created a continuous improvement plan from feedback and internal audits to ensure any concerns were addressed, and reviewed action plans to ensure improvement was achieved.

13 March 2013

During a routine inspection

Staff we spoke with explained how they always asked permission before providing care for people. People who use the service confirmed staff were respectful of their wishes. One person said 'staff are very nice and caring.'

We saw support plans were reviewed regularly, and helped people work towards goals they agreed to. One person told us 'staff help me cook, and I enjoy having their support.' A member of staff told us 'people have a lot of say in who supports them and what they want us to do for them.'

The provider had a clear safeguarding procedure. Staff told us they found it easy to follow. All staff we spoke with understood actions they should take if they identified a safeguarding incident. People who use the service told us they felt safe with staff. One person said 'staff are always there when I want to talk about things.'

Staff told us the provider was a good company to work for. The felt supported, and told us the training was excellent. One member of staff told us 'they listen to me and support me, and respond to requests quickly.'

There was a clear complaints procedure, with a format produced using pictures and words appropriate to people's communication methods. People who use the service told us they could raise complaints with staff. Staff said they were confident complaints would be addressed appropriately.