Background to this inspection
Updated
10 November 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This unannounced inspection took place on 19 October 2018. It was undertaken by one inspector. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office at other services that they manage and we needed to be sure they would be present for our inspection.
Before our inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service including notifications. A notification is information about events that the registered persons are required, by law, to tell us about. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist with planning the inspection.
We received survey responses from six people who use the service, 10 relatives or friends of people who use the service, and seven staff members. We asked for feedback from the commissioners of people’s care and representatives from the local authority and Healthwatch Cambridge. These people’s views helped us to plan our inspection.
During our inspection we spoke with three people who told us about their experience of receiving the service and five staff. These included the registered manager, a team leader and three health care assistants. We also spoke with the housing scheme manager.
We looked at two people’s care records, staff training records and other records relating to the management of the service. These included audits, accident and incident reports and meeting minutes.
Following our inspection the registered manager sent us additional information in relation to people’s involvement in the use of assisted technology and restricting people’s access to medicines.
Updated
10 November 2018
Radis Community Care (Ness Court ECH) provides care and support to older people living in a specialist ‘extra care’ housing scheme. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.
Not everyone using Radis Community Care (Ness Court ECH) receives the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
This announced inspection took place on 19 October 2018. At the time of this inspection, 20 people received the regulated activity, personal care.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised potential risks. Staff were only employed after satisfactory pre-employment checks had been obtained. There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met safely and in a timely manner.
People were supported to manage their prescribed medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed as competent to administer medicines. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination.
People’s care was planned and delivered in line with good practice guidance. Staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People received care from staff who were trained, well supported, and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s assessed needs.
People were supported by staff to have enough to eat and drink. People were assisted to have access to external healthcare services to help maintain their health and well-being.
Staff understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. People were fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. People and their relatives were involved in the setting up and review of their or their family member’s individual support and care plans.
Staff treated people kindly and made people feel that they mattered. Staff respected and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.
People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records provided staff with clear, detailed guidance in how to do this. Staff supported people to take part in past-times and hobbies they enjoyed. Staff supported people to consider their end of life care to ensure they had the most comfortable, dignified, and pain-free a death as possible. Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received joined-up care.
People’s suggestions and complaints were listened to, investigated, and acted upon to help improve the service.
Staff liked working for the service and were well supported by the registered manager. The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the service provided from people and took action to make improvements.
The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems throughout the service. The registered manager also carried out audits and quality monitoring checks to help identify shortfalls and to help drive forward improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.