You are here

Archived: Radis Community Care (Derby) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 March 2018

Radis Community Care – Derby is a ‘domiciliary care service.’ People receive personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the care provided, and this was looked at during this inspection. The service provides personal care for older people, people living with dementia, and people with a physical disability. This was a focused inspection to follow up the comprehensive inspection we carried out in October 2017.

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 February 2018. The inspection was announced because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager was available to conduct the inspection.

At our last inspection we identified regulatory breaches related to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider supplied an improvement action plan detailing improvements that were to be made to the service. At this inspection we found the registered provider had made sufficient improvements to meet previous breaches of regulations, though improvements were still needed in some areas.

A registered manager was in post. This is a condition of the registration of the service. 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 and their relatives told us they were safe receiving personal care from staff. They said staff provided care that they liked and they got on well with them.

People's risk assessments provided staff with information on how to support people safely, though some assessments were not fully in place. Calls to people had not always been timely.

People were protected from the risks of infection. Medicines were managed safely and people told us they had received their medicines.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities to act and report when needed.

Some people and their relatives told us they were satisfied with how the service was run by the registered manager. Staff were satisfied with the support they received from the management of the service. However, some people and their relatives said that the service needed to improve.

Management had carried out audits and checks to ensure the service was running properly to meet people's needs though some important issues had not been identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Risk assessments to promote people�s safety were not always in place. Staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe though some calls were not on time. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff, though had not always been comprehensively carried out. Medicine had been safely supplied to people. People had been protected from the risk of injury or the risk from infection. People and relatives told us that people were safe with staff employed by the service. Staff knew how to report any suspected abuse to their management.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 16 March 2018

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was not comprehensively well led.

Some systems had not been comprehensively audited in order to ensure that people were always provided with a quality service. Some people and relatives told us that management listened to them and put things right when they raised issues, though this was not everyone�s experience. People or their relatives had been consulted on the running of the service though staff had not been regularly consulted. There was a system in place so that we were informed, as legally required, of serious incidents affecting the service. Staff told us the management team provided good support to them and had a clear vision of how friendly individual care was to be provided to meet people's needs.