Archived: Radis Community Care (Caroline Square)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation because people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 35 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. We received mixed feedback in relation to how people felt staff treated and supported them. One person told us, “I have carers that are a bit abrupt.” A relative said, “I can’t stand any staff they are rude.” One person shared derogatory language staff had allegedly used about them and others told us they had been left without support to address their toileting needs in a timely way. One said, “When I want to go to the toilet I don’t like holding it, but they say I have to wait. I have ended up with wet pants.”

The manager acknowledged shortfalls in the care provided to people. In staff meeting minutes from January 2025 we read, “The basic level of care is not always there and needs to improve with immediate effect. Flats are left untidy…. Personal care not always completed to a high standard. You all should provide a high standard of good quality care as you would like your own family to receive.”

Many people, however, provided positive feedback. Comments included, “They are kind and caring. They treat me with respect” and, “The carers are the best thing.” Everyone spoke positively about the new team leader, calling them a ‘star’ and saying they ‘could not fault’ them. Our observations of staff supporting and interacting with people during the visit were positive.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People had not had sufficient input to determining their care and support. The manager was introducing profile pages as part of the ongoing work to update people’s care plans. An example we saw detailed what was important to the person, what people admire about them and how they would like to be supported. These were not yet in place for most people. We could not be assured people received appropriate and consistent care that met their preferences.

The new team leader was working to improve the social opportunities for people by adjusting staff allocations and involving people in planning for activities or trips they would like to participate in. People told us about regular events such as bingo, quizzes, coffee mornings and shared take away meals. There were also people from the local community who visited to run a knitting event and community events were advertised on the service’s noticeboard. Celebrations for special occasions were organised in conjunction with the housing provider. A representative of the housing provider told us, “I’m very impressed with [Team leader], he is very much for getting people down and to join in.” A relative said, “They encouraged [Name] to go down, they chat to her.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Most people told us they had not been involved in planning their care and support. The care plans in place lacked detail on people’s individual needs and wishes. One person said they had waited almost 6 months to get a care plan. Where people had a more detailed care plan, people told us staff were not always familiar with it. One person said, “To make it better, they could read the care plan to understand me instead of asking.”

However, others told us staff understood their wishes. One person said, “The staff understand my needs without a doubt.” Another told us, “I choose to have a female for toilet calls and they do that.” A third said, “They are flexible to my needs and shower or wash me.”

The provider was aware of the shortfalls in person-centred information about people, their needs and wishes. A plan was in place to address this, but at the time of our visit most of the work still needed to be completed.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. People had not been sufficiently involved in planning or reviewing their care, treatment and support. Records of people’s wishes and preferences were insufficient.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People reported delays in receiving support to ad hoc or emergency calls. One person said, “Now I have a full bladder and they came at two but they said they were on handover so I would have to wait until after five.” Another told us, “I dare not buzz as I have been asked not to.”

The system to ensure handsets to respond to unscheduled calls were allocated and responded to was not robust. In the minutes of a staff meeting in January 2025 we read, “It was brought up that some that staff get allocated Tunstall phone them leave it in the staffroom, or they do not bother to answer them.” A similar concern was recorded in a team leader meeting in March 2024. The team leader told us unanswered calls were escalated to the system provider, who would then call the service to prompt the call to be answered. Some people told us, however, they had not received a response on some occasions. A relative said, “One night [Name] called four times and they didn’t come so she rang me and was two hours before they came.”

Communication within the staff team not always effective and there was evidence this had led to people’s wishes or needs not being met. For example, staff had been unaware a person’s relative was not available meaning additional support and oversight from staff was required but not delivered.

Whilst there was some evidence of using ‘pop in’ calls to good effect, for example to encourage fluids, staff had not always quickly identified or escalated concerns appropriately. This included low blood glucose readings and coughing whilst eating and drinking, both of which could lead to harm if not addressed.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke of challenges and uncertainty in the team. We received reports of rotas being managed unfairly and of new staff being paired with other new staff. This meant they did not benefit from shadowing experienced members of the team who knew people better. This was particularly concerning given the lack of accurate guidance for staff in people’s written records. One staff member said, “I think it’s been difficult where the team leaders and managers have changed, it’s been a confusing time for the staff as there have been a lot of new faces.”

Staff had not received regular supervision to support their practice. On staff member told us, “We do sometimes get supervision”. Another 2 staff told us they had not had supervision since ‘management changes.’ The provider’s policy stated staff would receive supervision once every quarter with the fourth quarter being an annual appraisal. Records showed staff had not received supervision in line with this policy.

Some staff mentioned the impact of division within the team on their wellbeing. One staff member said, “There can be a poor attitude from staff. We’re all here to do the same job and support people so we should all just get on regardless of age or how long we’ve worked there.” The manager was aware of challenges within the culture of the service and was taking steps to make improvements for staff and people receiving care.

Staff had access to an employee assistance programme through the provider. There was also a recognition scheme in place, with one staff member recognised as ‘carer of the year’ in the provider’s awards ceremony.