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

Archived: Radis Community Care (Oxford)

Suite 15, Elms Court, Elms Parade, Botley, Oxfordshire, OX2 9LP (01865) 250767

Provided and run by:
G P Homecare Limited

All Inspections

30 August 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Radis Community Care (Oxford) because during our visit in May 2013 we found that the provider was non-compliant regarding assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We found that care workers were not reporting incidents to the provider. This meant that the provider was not always aware of incidents and was not able to take appropriate action. We also noted that while the provider identified risks with people's care appropriate guidance was not always provided to care workers to minimise the risk.

Since our last visit, the manager had told us that they had ensured that all care workers were given information on incident reporting and risk assessments were documented. We met with the manager, the regional manager and a care co-ordinator during our visit. We did not speak with people as it was not relevant to the purpose of the visit. We looked at comments made by people included in the recent quality survey conducted by the provider.

The provider had raised awareness of incident reporting. We saw that the provider had given information to care workers and people who used the service about the action to take when reporting an incident.

People and care workers were protected from risk. We looked at six people's care files. We noted that where risks had been identified as part of the person's care, that care workers were provided with appropriate guidance to reduce these risks.

We saw that people's views were sought and concerns acted on.

21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People informed us they had access to care records. Every person we spoke with told us they were involved in decisions about their care. One person told us, 'They've recently come to look at all my paperwork, we went through it together'.

People we spoke with were positive about the service they now received. People also told us there had been a number of improvements in the months prior to our inspection. One person told us, 'In the past year there has been a change of management, things went to pieces but things have got better'.

All care workers we spoke with informed us they had read and had a copy of the provider's medication policy. Care workers told us they had undergone training in medication administration.

People we spoke with told us that staff were not rushed and spent the full amount of the allocated time with them. They also commented there had been a lot of improvements in staffing levels during the six months prior to our inspection. One person told us, "They're not rushed at all, we take it as it comes, everything is well done ".

Care workers we spoke with felt that they were supported by the provider and had access to mandatory training, specific training and a structured supervision and appraisal programme.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. Learning from incidents did not always take place.

23 May 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies. With particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an 'expert by experience', people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective and a professional advisor.'

We used telephone interviews and home visits to people who used the service and to their main carers (a relative or friends) to gain views about the service. We also spent time with the manager and care staff.

People made comments about the number of different care workers who called upon them. 'You get different staff coming all the time', 'it would be far better if I had the same carers most of the time, they would get to know me and my needs, and I would get to know them' and 'staff are forever changing, some stability would be helpful'. The manager had already identified the need for service improvement in this area. Those people who we visited in their own homes told us 'I could not manage without the help I am provided with', 'my memory lets me down a lot and it is very helpful having someone come to cook my tea' and 'I am please with the service and the carers are very kind to me'.

We found that the agency did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision, and were therefore not aware of the level of dissatisfaction that was expressed by those people we had contact with.