- Homecare service
Archived: Radis Community Care (Brunel Court)
Assessment report published 1 December 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 8 October 2024 to 29 October 2025. This was a comprehensive assessment of all 5 key questions to follow up on our last inspection (published 17 January 2024), where the service was rated inadequate. Radis Community Care (Brunel Court) provides personal care services for people living in self-contained flats in an extra care housing scheme. Not everyone who lived in 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. The service provides support including for people living with dementia, physical disability, sensory impairment, mental health conditions, and older and younger adults. An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. At the time of the assessment, the service was not used by anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service in receipt of support with their personal care.
This service was rated Inadequate at our previous inspection and had been in Special Measures since 17 January 2024. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, fit and proper persons employed and good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of these 3 regulations.
The provider was motivated to learn and improve the service for people. However, their overall ambition was limited by a lack of effective risk and quality monitoring systems. This meant they had not been aware of the ongoing shortfalls we found in relation to recruitment practice and people’s risk assessments. The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, where staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. However, actions and outcomes were not always clear, and lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The manager was working towards improving these areas following the inspection.
People and staff felt they could raise issues, and senior staff would address their concerns.
People were protected and kept safe from abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff in place. People were consulted around how they wished their care to be carried out. Staff understood and managed risks related to people’s care. However, risks were not always comprehensively assessed and documented in people’s care plans. Safe systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered appropriately where required by competent staff. However, not all missed medicines would be followed up in a timely manner. It was not always clear who was responsible for re-ordering and receiving medicines. This meant people could be at risk of running out and missing their medicines.
Staff worked with stakeholders involved in people’s care to promote the best outcomes and safe transitions when people moved between services. The manager ensured mandatory training was completed by staff, although more regular refreshers on people’s specific conditions would be beneficial.
Staff cared for people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence. People were treated with kindness and compassion and had a good level of consistency in care staff.
Leaders were visible and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. However, the manager’s knowledge of the regulations and registered manager role needed some development.
Staff felt able to give feedback and were treated equally. The manager worked with stakeholders in the local community to deliver good quality care and were receptive to new ideas. The manager was very responsive and accepting of any points raised by the inspectors during the assessment.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 6 people, and 3 relatives of people who used the service to gain feedback about their experiences of receiving care from the provider.
Feedback from people was positive, although there were concerns raised by some relatives. The manager was aware of these and was working to resolve their concerns.
People we spoke with were positive about staff, telling us they were happy and felt safe receiving care. Comments included, “I am happy with the service and [staff] are in and around Brunel Court 24/7 which makes me feel secure.”
We were also told people received care from regular staff and they also knew the less frequent staff. People told us staff were well trained and efficient. Relatives raised a concern over staff not being well trained in specific conditions such as dementia.
Feedback on timing of calls was good, with people telling us they were happy with their staff, who they felt were good and consistently arrived on time. One person said, “I know most of the staff and they usually come around the expected time and stay for the full duration.”
People did not raise concerns about their medicines. However, relatives told us medicines had been missed, and creams were not always being applied.
They told us staff knew people’s needs well, and they had worked with the provider to give a lot of information at the start of their care package. This included preparing their own care plans. However, some people and relatives were not aware of their care plans. One relative said, “I have never seen a care plan or had a review of [relative’s] care.” The manager had increased the frequency of care reviews, and care plans were kept in people’s homes.
We were also told senior staff came out to review people’s care to ensure their needs were being met.
People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate when delivering care. Comments included, “[Staff] are very kind and do their best to help you”, and “As far as I’m concerned, they’re brilliant.”
People and relatives told us they knew staff and leaders well, including receiving visits from senior staff. People told us they thought the service was well run and they would recommend them, although some relatives were not happy with some aspects including the response from management. The manager had set up meetings with relatives to try and improve this.