Radfield Home Care Limited - Shrewsbury

Radfield Home Care Shrewsbury is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 54 people in their own homes at the time of the inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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.

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

People and relatives we spoke with told us that overall, they felt staff provided safe care and support. One person told us, “That was the whole idea, for them to make sure I am alright, and they do that well.” We discussed with the service a few areas for review when it came to supporting people with their medicines and managers were responsive to this feedback. On balance we heard and found that people’s experience of using the service was very positive.

People and relatives told us that staff were usually on time and no care calls were missed. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and had confidence in managers to address any concerns. People using the service, their relatives and staff were involved in the development of the service through regular reviews and meetings. We discussed how these, alongside a variety of quality checks and audits, could further support the service to make and maintain improvements.

The service was led by a very well-respected management team who were knowledgeable about people and their needs and particularly supportive of their staff. People and relatives spoke very well of the staff and told us that most were very good, kind and caring. People and relatives knew who to speak to if they needed to complain, but most told us they had never had a reason to.

Staff understood the value and importance of providing company and social contact for people, while also completing all tasks people needed them to. The service had developed connections with other professionals and organisations. This helped to continuously develop their best practice and achieve positive outcomes for people.

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.

At the time of inspection, individualised care was supported through brief electronic care plans that gave basic information and reminded staff which tasks to carry out. The service was developing care plans to become much richer in their information about people’s life stories.

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 20 October 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We inspected to check whether the service had maintained its Good rating and overall found that they had.

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.

This inspection took place on 7 September 2016 and was announced.

The agency provides personal care for people in their own home. There were 55 people using the service when we inspected.

There was a registered manager in post who was not available during this inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe when staff came into their home and felt protected from the risk of potential abuse. People risks during personal care had been identified and plans showed the steps staff needed to take to manage them. People had their calls at a time that reflected their preferences and the required number of staff attended. People who had support with their medicines had them administered when needed, with staff who were competent to do so.

Staff had received training to ensure their skills and knowledge reflected the needs of the people they cared for. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and the management team checked that staff were working as expected. Where people needed support with their meals they told us they were happy that staff gave them a choice or provided the assistance needed to enjoy their meal.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and plans were in place detailing how they wished to be supported. People’s consent was obtained by staff when caring for them. People told us they arranged their own healthcare appointments as required, however staff would help with telephone calls and reminders if needed.

People knew the staff and were comfortable with staff providing a personalised service in their home. Staff spent time chatting with people while providing care. People felt the care they had received met their needs and had been able to tell staff how they wanted their care. People felt the staff were considerate and supported them in maintaining their dignity.

People’s views and decisions they had made when planning or making changes to their care were listened to and recorded in care plans. People knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable to do this should they need to and felt these would be dealt with. Information was provided to people who used the service should they wish to raise a complaint.

People, their family members and staff felt the management team were accessible and could speak with them to provide feedback about the service. The management team had kept their knowledge up to date and they led by example. The provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care that people received and to action where improvements were needed.

We spoke with three care workers, the manager and owner. Care workers spoke positively of the service, they told us they were supported and enjoyed their work.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. This was because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential abuse and acted appropriately.

The provider sought people's views periodically and completed assessments of risks to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

People told us they felt fully involved with the assessment of their needs and planning for their care. They considered care workers had a good understanding of individuals' needs and preferences. Staff were able to share examples of how they respected people's privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

People said they felt safe in the presence of their care workers. One person commented, 'I trust them implicitly'. Staff had received training on protecting the people they supported. They were able to describe abuse and knew how to respond to protect people.

There was a process in place to ensure that appropriate checks were done before staff began work in people's own homes. Staff told us they enjoyed their work and said they were well supported.

The agency ensured that people's views were considered and listened to. People had been provided with information of how to use the complaint process. They said staff were very approachable and understanding.