We carried out a review of the data available to us about Radis Community Care (Nottingham) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Radis Community Care (Nottingham), you can give feedback on this service.
Radis Community Care (Nottingham) is a domiciliary service providing personal care to vulnerable people in their own homes. The service is run from an office located in the outskirts of Nottingham. At the time of our inspection 23 people were receiving personal care support. 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 received a service which was safe. Care staff were safely recruited and received the necessary training to safeguard people from potential abuse. Staff received infection control training and were provided with the necessary personal protective equipment to keep themselves, and people, safe from health infections when providing personal care in people’s homes. People were supported to receive their prescribed medicines safely.
People received an effective service. Comprehensive care plans were in place to guide staff on how to support people. Although some staff found it occasionally a rush to travel between some care visits, people told us care staff usually arrived on time. People were supported by staff who had received the necessary training. Staff told us they felt supported by their manager. People were supported to make decisions about their care and, where a person lacked the capacity to do so, appropriate best interest decision processes were in place.
People were treated with kindness and respect by the care staff. People’s feedback about the service was consistently positive, and some people told us how care staff went the extra mile for them.
People received care which was well planned. Care plans were comprehensive and regularly reviewed. Support was provided responsively to people depending on their individual needs. People were provided with written information in formats they could understand. There had been no formal complaints about the service since the previous inspection.
People achieved good outcomes from the care they received, and the registered manager, and care staff, were committed to providing person centred care. People were regularly asked, by the provider, for feedback on the service they received.
The registered manager ensured the necessary external agencies were notified about any incidents which occurred and had a good understanding of regulatory requirements. The service was delivered in partnership with community and specialist health care agencies to ensure people received the support they needed.
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.
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 14 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
Radis Community Care Nottingham provides personal care to people living in their own homes, there were 32 people receiving personal care at the time of our inspection. The service was last inspected March 2015 and the rating for that inspection was Good.
There was not a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe when staff supported them within their home. People were protected from harm by staff who knew how to report any concerns. Assessments of the risks to people’s safety were in place and regularly reviewed.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff in place to keep people safe. Safe recruitment processes were in place.
People were protected from the risks associated with managing medicines. There were processes in place to ensure medicines were handled and administered safely.
Staff received sufficient training, regular supervision to carry out their roles and felt supported by the management team.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were considered when supporting people. People were supported and encouraged to follow a healthy and balanced diet. People’s day to day health needs were met effectively by the staff.
People and their families had formed good relationships with the staff that cared and supported them. People were treated with respect and dignity. People were involved with decisions made about their care and support. Information was available for people if they wished to speak with an independent advocate. People were supported to live as independently as possible.
People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and were encouraged to do so if needed. The provider was reviewing their procedures to ensure all complaints and concerns were recorded and dealt with in a timely manner.
People and staff spoke highly of the staff overseeing the service in the absence of a manager along with the service provided. Systems were in place that enabled people, staff and relatives to give their views about the service.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The service promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open, and inclusive.
We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 27 March 2015. There were breaches of legal requirements at our last inspection in 2013 and we had been assured by the provider that improvements were made. During this visit we found some improvements were maintained.
Radis Community Care (Nottingham) provides personal care and support to people in the Nottingham area. There were 38 people receiving care in their own homes at the time of our visit.
There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt the service was safe and reliable. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to identify the possibility of abuse and to reduce the risk of people experiencing abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise abuse and confirmed they had completed relevant safeguarding training.
Appropriate risk assessments had been undertaken to make sure the environment was safe and secure for staff to attend to people’s needs.
People were supported by appropriately skilled and trained staff because the provider had a robust recruitment process in place. There were sufficient numbers of staff to cover calls in an effective and caring way. The manager was recruiting for additional staff at the time of our visit.
People were supported to make informed choices and staff had awareness of the Mental Capacity (MCA) Act 2005, The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is designed to protect people who do not have the capacity to make certain important decisions for themselves, because they may lack the capacity to make such decisions due to permanent or temporary problems such as mental illness, brain injury or learning disability. We found that the MCA was being adhered to.
Care plans contained individual information relevant to the person. People were encouraged to be independent and received relevant information on how the service was run. People felt that they could express their views about the service that they received.
People knew how to raise any concerns, they knew who they should contact and raise the concern with.
People received good care which met their needs. They were treated with respect and the staff provided the care in a caring way.
People and their families were involved in decisions related to their care and support. Care plans contained information relevant to the person and were individualised to reflect people’s needs.
Complaints and concerns were logged and monitored to ensure they were dealt with in a timely manner. Outcomes were reviewed to improve the practise and to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.
The service was monitored regularly by the provider and registered manager to make sure a quality service was provided.
People were encouraged to express their views and comment on how the service was run.
The management team worked well and supported staff accordingly. The service worked well with other professionals and the care commissioners.
A person told us that staff were good at their jobs. She said; 'staff are friendly but they rush sometimes'.
We spoke with the relatives of six people. They all told us that care was good and staff seemed to be well trained. There were concerns about staff not always turning up in time, a high turnover of staff which did not provide consistency of care and staff not always following practical instructions.
One relative said; 'I have no problem with staff. But I think the agency needs to be better organised. There are too many missed calls'.
This was a mixed positive inspection. People we spoke with thought care staff were caring. However, they did not always receive the care they needed. This was also the general view of their relatives. The essential standards we inspected with regard to the agency providing consistent care, comprehensive staff training and dealing with complaints were not met.
There were other suggestions made; better staff teamwork amongst care workers and always providing information to people about what care they would receive.