Archived: Radis Community Care (Worcester)

At the last inspection, in August 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive care which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and measures were in place to help reduce these risks. When people required support to take their medicines this only happened when staff had received the training to do so. Regular checks on staff practices were undertaken to support people’s safety.

Staff were available to respond to and meet people's needs safely without people feeling rushed and/or care calls being missed. Recruitment checks were completed on potential new staff to make sure they were suitable to support people in their own homes.

People were provided with care which continued to be effective in meeting their particular needs. Staff had received training to provide them the skills and knowledge they needed to provide the right care and support people required.

Staff asked people's permission before they assisted them with any care or support. People's right to make their own decisions about care and how they were supported by staff was respected. When needed, arrangements were in place to support people in remaining in good health and have enough to eat and drink.

People continued to receive support from staff that had a caring approach. People knew the staff that supported them and had good relationships with them. People felt involved in their own care and staff listened to how they preferred their care and support to be delivered. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity when they supported them and promoted their independence.

People were provided with care and support which was individual to them. Their care and support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs.

People were encouraged to raise concerns and make complaints and were happy these would be responded to. The management team used feedback from complaints and questionnaires to assist them in identifying areas of improvements for the benefit of people.

Staff were happy in their work and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. There was an ethos of continuously looking for improvement of the service delivered.

There was a clearly defined management structure which had changed since our previous inspection. People felt listened to when they provided feedback about the service they received and knew about the changes. The management team worked well together and developed systems so they continued to be effective and responsive in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The service had a policy for safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. This was communicated during the initial staff induction and summarised in the staff handbook. Staff we spoke to were clear that they would report any concerns immediately to the registered manager. People using the service and their families expressed confidence that they could raise any concerns they had with the management team. A senior member of the team was on call at all times in case of emergencies. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Recruitment procedures were robust, and all checks were completed in accordance with the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act. Staff completed a three day classroom based training programme, and two weeks of 'shadow shifts' with experienced staff. Prior to be being allowed to work unsupervised, staff were then required to complete a test based supervision session, which they were required to pass. This meant that the provider could demonstrate that all staff employed were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to provide personal care to people in their own homes.

People told us that their rights and dignity were respected, and commented very positively about the staff team.

The registered manager organised staff rota's to promote continuity of care, including the allocation of staff to cover holidays and sickness. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service and their families told us that they knew all their carers by name, and that the carers wore name badges. They also told us that they were involved in the planning and the review of their support plans. One person we spoke with said they were: "Happy with the plan and the care, and the senior staff pop in sometimes to check, and to review the plan". A health professional we spoke to said that: "The care folders are very good, and the daily entries are fully completed". This meant that people could be confident their care needs were appropriately monitored.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people and families who gave positive feedback about the staff. We were told that the staff were excellent, and one relative who had been recently introduced to the service said: "They are always respectful, they arrive on time, I can't fault them".

When speaking with staff it was clear that they really cared about the people they were providing a service for. One staff member said: "It is important to really listen, and sometimes we can pick up that they are worried about something".

Is the service responsive?

People that we spoke with felt comfortable that they could make a complaint to the registered manager or one of the senior staff. The provider may wish to note that not all people spoken with believed that they had received a copy of the provider's service user guide. This guide, which should be given to all people receiving a service contains a range of useful information, including the complaints procedure and contact details for other authorities.

The provider worked well with other agencies and the support plans included guidance received from other health professionals. One health professional spoken to said: "There have never been any issues, the team are always polite and deal with issues quickly. The family of a person I reviewed recently were more than happy and very positive".

Is the service well led?

People had the opportunity to complete an annual questionnaire about the quality of the staff and the service they received. In addition senior staff and the registered manager telephoned people and completed unannounced spot checks on staff. This meant that people were able to give feedback on a regular basis. It was evident that actions were taken in response to any issues identified.

One person we spoke with said they were: "Happy with the plan and the care, and the senior staff pop in sometimes to check, and to review the plan". A health professional we spoke with said that: "The care folders are very good, and the daily entries are fully completed".

Whilst the support plans and the daily records were audited by the senior team on a regular basis, several people had not had an annual review completed in a timely manner. This was being addressed, with an expected completion date of June 2014.

On a three monthly basis, areas for quality improvement were identified from audits and quality assurance checks. The required actions were discussed at each staff meeting and at staff supervision sessions to ensure that improvements were made in the required areas. Topics selected during the last year included medication management and infection control. This showed that the registered manager looked for ways to make continuous improvements to the service.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person said: 'They are very good and nothing's too much trouble.' A relative said: 'I think it's excellent. They're very caring.'

We found consent had been obtained from people before care had been provided. We also found that steps had been taken to ensure that people received individualised care. Care had been planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

The provider had audit systems in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided to ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment. The provider had a complaints policy in place and had taken people's complaints seriously. Complaints had been investigated and action had been taken by the provider when necessary.

We found that people had been involved in making decisions about their care and were satisfied with the care they received from staff. People we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving care.

Care support plans had been recorded for each person. These plans provided information for staff when they visited people and ensured their individual needs would be met. When we spoke with staff they told us about the care people received and this matched the information in their care support plans.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. People told us staff were competent and caring and we found that staff had received training relevant to their roles and responsibilities. This ensured that people who used the service were cared for by capable and competent staff.

We saw that arrangements were in place for monitoring the quality of the service. People who used the service and the staff we spoke with told us they had no difficulties raising issues of concern and knew that they would be listened to.