You are here

Radis Community Care (Woodland Court) Good

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Radis Community Care (Woodland Court) on 9 September 2021. 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 (Woodland Court), you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 18 September 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 5 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 5 February 2015. At the last inspection in August 2014 we found the provider was in breach of regulation that related to supporting staff. We found, since the last inspection, the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure they made improvements and met the regulation.

Woodland Court Extra Care is a purpose built independent living facility comprising of 46 flats and shared communal facilities including a hairdressing salon, bistro, activity rooms, therapy room, laundry, lounge and landscaped garden. The communal facilities, including the bistro can be accessed by the general public.

At the time of this inspection the service had a registered manager. 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 and said they knew the staff well and felt comfortable with them. Staff had a good understanding of protecting people from abuse and knew what to do to keep people safe. Systems were in place to manage risk so people felt safe and also had the most freedom possible. There were enough competent staff on duty to keep people safe. Our review of records and observations showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

People felt confident that the staff were well trained and competent. Staff understood their obligations with respect to people’s choices and involved people in making decisions about their care and support. People received appropriate support to ensure their nutritional needs were met. They had choice of cooking and eating in their accommodation or eating at the on-site bistro. People were supported with their health needs.

People provided a consistent response about the high quality of care delivered by the provider. When we walked around the building we could hear chatter and laughter, and the friendly atmosphere was evident. People told us they had good relationships with staff. Staff were confident people received good care and understood how to ensure they treated people with respect, dignity and privacy.

People’s needs were assessed and care delivery was planned to make sure care was person centred. People enjoyed a range of activities and were protected from the risks of social isolation. The provider had systems for dealing with complaints and receiving compliments.

The service had good management and leadership. People got opportunity to comment on the quality of service and influence service delivery. Effective systems were in place that ensured people received safe quality care.

Inspection carried out on 8 August 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day we visited we gathered evidence and inspected against six outcomes to help answer our five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

The staff and people who used the service felt the tenants who lived at Woodland Court were safe. We inspected the staffing rota set by the manager and observed that there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to ensure that people�s needs were being met. We had some minor concerns related to the support of staff in that mandatory training update were overdue and had yet to be scheduled to ensure a smooth flow throughout the year.

Is the service responsive?

The flats we were invited into were had an open plan kitchen and lounge with either one or two bedrooms or a large shower wet room and toilet. The flats were furnished and personalised with the tenants� own furniture and kitchen equipment. Some people preferred to stay in their own room and prepare their own food, whilst others preferred to join the other people who lived in the Woodland Court and made use of the subsidised Bistro on a daily basis.

There was a distinct friendship group that had formed amongst the tenants who regularly choose to socialise in the lounge and or landscape garden. We observed that people were able to tailor the visits to coincide with changes in their chosen daily activities and extra visits were arranged to ensure people were kept well hydrated on warm days.

Is the service caring?

The people who lived at Woodland Court were encouraged to be independent and self-caring. They and their spouses were supported by staff to make decisions about the activities they undertook during the week. We observed the interactions between staff and tenants to be unhurried, friendly, cheerful and sensitive. All the people we spoke to told us the staff were very good, kind polite and respectful. One person we spoke with had severe physical and communication difficulties went to great personal lengths to ensure they communicated with us. They told us that they were very well looked after and that their named carer was excellent.

Is the service effective?

All the people who lived at Woodland Court Extra Care Housing had their own self-contained flat which they occupied either alone or with their spouse/partner. We saw that people all had signed tenancy agreements with the council. The manager told us that 30 people within the facility were in a receipt of care packages. During our visit we spoke to a number for people who used the facility and had a sometime in the last year received limited periods of care and five people who were receiving a range of care services. We saw that people had also signed for care staff to have access to the flat keys via the coded key safe which were outside all the flats. Wellbeing checks were undertaken on all tenants and health care professionals and social work personnel were on site regularly.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager was experienced in housing support and newly appointed in post. They were highly regarded and respected by staff, tenants and by other health care professionals.