You are here

Radis Community Care (Woodland Court) Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The inspection of Radis Community Care (Woodland Court) took place on 18 and 19 September 2017. The service was previously inspected in February 2015 and was found to be compliant with no breaches of regulations at that time.

Woodland Court offers accommodation for older people requiring care and support to live independently. Individual flats or apartments provide independent living, while communal spaces are available with the opportunity to be part of a community. The registered provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care for people living at Woodland Court. 36 people living at Woodland Court were receiving personal care services at the time of this inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received safeguarding training in order to keep people safe and staff demonstrated a good understanding of what to do if they were concerned anyone was at risk of abuse. There were robust recruitment practices in place, which meant staff had been recruited safely. Risks to people had been assessed and reduced where possible.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately documented and records we inspected, and our discussions with staff, showed staff were aware of actions to take in an emergency. People had pendants they could press to request assistance and people told us staff responded quickly to such requests.

Staff were trained to manage and administer medicines to people and their competency was regularly assessed. People told us they had confidence in staff to assist them safely with medicines. Most of the records in relation to medicines we inspected were fully completed, however, some medication administration records were not fully completed and the registered manager took immediate action to address this.

People received effective care and support to meet their needs. People told us they felt staff had the necessary skills and training to provide effective care and support. Staff told us they felt supported and we saw staff had received an appropriate induction into their roles as well as ongoing training, support and supervision.

Care and support was provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw from the care files we reviewed, consent had been sought and obtained from people, prior to their care and support being provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People we spoke with told us staff were caring. Staff were enthusiastic and were motivated to provide good quality care. Staff explained to us how they respected people’s privacy and dignity and the people we spoke with confirmed this happened. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Care and support plans were detailed and personalised, taking into account people’s choices and preferences and people’s needs were reviewed regularly. People were involved in their care planning and told us they could make their own choices. People told us the service was responsive and flexible to their needs.

Regular audits and quality assurance checks took place, in order to drive improvement within the service and feedback was given to staff in order to improve practice. Staff told us they felt supported. Complaints were managed effectively and responded to appropriately.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and staff understood signs of potential abuse and could explain what action they would take if they had any concerns.

Risk assessments had been completed and measures were in place to reduce risks to people.

Staff had been recruited safely and staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received an induction and ongoing training and people told us they felt staff were skilled and well-trained.

Care and support was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff had received training in this area.

Consent was obtained from people in relation to the care and support provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring and they had positive relationships with staff.

Staff were motivated to provide good quality care.

People�s privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People told us the service was flexible to meet their needs.

Care plans were personalised, enabling people to receive support that was appropriate for their individual needs and preferences.

Complaints were well managed. People told us they felt able to approach the registered manager with any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 October 2017

The service was well-led.

People and staff told us they felt the service was well-led.

Quality assurance checks were in place in order to continually improve the service.

There was an open and transparent culture and the registered manager was receptive to feedback and keen to drive improvements.