Radis Community Care (Maritime House)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. We found an ongoing breach in regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. The leadership team had made significant efforts to improve the culture at the service. The leadership team were a visible presence and had made a concerted effort to improve the experience for people, staff and visitors. The leadership team had created a community atmosphere through organising clubs, events and activities. People told us this had improved their experience of living at the service. The registered manager had a clear vision for the service. They understood the breadth of needs they were able to accommodate and had recognised the service was not set up to meet complex health or behavioural needs. There had been a gradual reduction in complexity of population at the service, which had a positive effect on the quality of care people received.

The provider had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. The registered manager and leadership were receptive to feedback during the inspection, taking immediate action to address concerns. The registered manager and deputy manager had worked hard to improve the quality of the service since our last inspection. They had recognised their own professional development needs and had attended training courses to improve their skills and knowledge.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff spoke positively about the management team and told us they would feel confident in raising any issues or concerns. Leaders demonstrated an open approach in their engagement with staff, which helped to promote an open culture.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff spoke positively about the management team and told us they would feel confident in raising any issues or concerns. Leaders demonstrated an open approach in their engagement with staff, which helped to promote an open culture.

Governance processes were not always robust in identifying and improving the quality of care. Although the provider had made improvements since our last inspection, progress had been gradual, with some key areas still requiring development to ensure a good standard of care was embedded and sustained. Some quality audits needed development to ensure they were effective and beneficial in driving quality improvement. For example, call bell audits did not analyse staff response times to call bell requests. This meant the audit gave the provider limited assurance around how quickly call bell requests were responded to. Existing auditing processes were not completed effectively or consistently. For example, the provider had developed an auditing tool for staff recruitment files. However, we found this had not been used and the provider had not picked up some gaps we identified in staff recruitment records. Therefore, this auditing tool had not been used effectively to identify issues or drive improvement. We also found shortfalls in the auditing processes of care plans and incident records. The provider had made improvements in areas such as medicines management, consent and information sharing with stakeholders. However, further improvements were required to ensure care in these areas reflected a consistently good standard. The registered manager was receptive and responsive to our feedback during the assessment, making initial changes to begin to address concerns.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The leadership team recognised the benefit of working pro-actively with stakeholders to improve the quality of the service. The registered manager had sought to foster a community spirit at the service. This helped provide people with companionship, social interaction and meaningful activity both within the eservice and in the wider local community. This helped to promote people’s wellbeing.

The provider had made improvements to the quality of service since our last inspection. Although more progress was needed to demonstrate consistent and sustained progress, it was clear the provider had made positive strides to address the concerns raised. The provider had completed internal quality audits, which had picked up similar themes to our inspection. They formulated action plans in response to issues raised. Some improvements and actions had been completed, however, other actions remained ongoing and not all improvement had been embedded.