We carried out a review of the data available to us about Radis Community Care (Somers Court) 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 (Somers Court), you can give feedback on this service.
Radis Community Care (Somers Court) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their flats within Somers Court. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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. At the time of this inspection, 18 people received the regulated activity, personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Care plans had not been reviewed but the registered manager was taking steps to address this to help ensure that each person's care package met their care and support needs. However, staff were very knowledgeable about each person care and support needs.
Staff had received the appropriate training and knew how to implement this to meet people's needs well. People's care, health and cultural needs were identified so staff could meet these. People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required.
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 requires improvement (published 26 October 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Effective and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Radis Community Care (Somers Court) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service provided. However, these were not sufficiently robust and had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection in relation to care records and failure to notify CQC of important events.
Staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. However, staff were supporting one person to smoke cigarettes, but this had not been risk assessed and staff did not have any guidance to follow to ensure they provided the support safely. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination.
The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.
Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. They worked with external professionals, following their guidance, to support people to keep well.
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. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. However, staff had not always obtained evidence that other people had the legal authority to make decisions on behalf of a person.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. However, staff did not always record information and store it in a person-centred way. They supported people to develop their independence. Support was person-centred and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews. The registered manager sought feedback from people about the quality of the service provided.
People’s care plans provided staff with guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. The service did not provide specialist end of life care but had continued to care for people at the end of their life with support from external health professionals. The area manager told us they were looking to further develop end of life and future wishes care plans to ensure people’s wishes were known to staff. Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received care that met their needs.
Systems were in place to deal with any concerns or complaints. The team leader told us they tried to address any concerns at an early stage, thereby resolving issues before they became complaints.
We identified three breaches of regulations. This included two breaches of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, relating to the provider’s failure to notify the CQC of important events, and one breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to good governance. Please see the 'action we have told the provider to take' section towards the end of the report.
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 on 19 April 2017). At this inspection the rating went down to requires improvement.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We have asked the provider to send us an action plan telling us what steps they are to take to make the improvements needed. We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for services rated requires improvement.
At the last inspection on 30 November 2015, the service was rated good. However, we asked the provider to make improvements in relation to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider sent us an action plan detailing how and when the required improvements would be made by.
At this inspection we found the service remained good. There were 27 people receiving the service. We found staff knowledge about the MCA had improved. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people did not have the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process.
However, we found that although quality assurance systems were in place to help drive improvements in the quality of care that people were provided with, these were not always effective. In addition, the provider and registered manager had not always notified the CQC about events that they were legally required to notify about. Further, although the registered manager had displayed the service’s previous CQC rating, this was not in the specified format.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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 receiving the service. Systems were in place to identify and reduce the risks to people using the service. Staff supported people to receive their prescribed medicines.
People told us there were enough competent staff to provide them with support when they needed it. Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff had received appropriate training, support and development to carry out their role effectively.
People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.
People told us and we observed that they were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and upheld their dignity.
Staff supported people to maintain relationships. People received personalised care that met their individual needs. Staff promoted social inclusion and supported people to join in with events at the scheme.
People told us they knew how to complain and were confident they would be listened to if they wished to make a complaint.
People were given the opportunity to feed back on the service and their views were acted on.
Further information is in the detailed findings in the full version of the report.
Radis Community Care (Somers Court) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. During this inspection personal care was provided to approximately 25 people, all of whom lived within Somers Court. Part of the service’s contract included the provision of all people’s meals from a central kitchen.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
This announced inspection was carried out on 30 November 2015. It was the first inspection of this service since it registered on 26 August 2014.
Staff were only employed after the provider carried out satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were trained and well supported by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.
People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. People were provided with a balanced diet and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. People received their prescribed medicines appropriately and medicines were stored in a safe way.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People’s decisions were respected by staff. However, processes were not in place to protect people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions from unlawful restriction and unlawful decision making.
People received care and support from staff who were friendly, helpful and respectful. People were encouraged to provide feedback on the service in various ways both formally and informally. People were involved in their care assessments and reviews. Care records provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure the change was effective.
People, relatives and staff told us the service was well run. People told us that the registered manager, was approachable and that their views were listened to and acted on.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.