Archived: Radis Community Care (Caroline Square)

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. 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 told us, “I have to give them lots of instruction which is tiring.” The lack of reliable information about people and their wishes meant people could not be assured of receiving appropriate and consistent care that met their preferences.

There had been a lapse in the provider’s quality reviews where people are asked for their feedback on their care and support. Where feedback had been provided, actions were not always recorded to make changes as requested.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The provider did not have a system in place to record visits from health or social care professionals to ensure their recommendations or changes to a person’s care and support were put in place. The absence of clear information about people’s needs and risks in their care meant the provider was not always aware of changes in people’s needs to involve professionals in a timely way.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Whilst there was a section in people’s care plans detailing their communication style and preferences, this was not always updated or understood by staff. For example, staff identified one person to us as ‘non-verbal’ and told us they lacked capacity, yet in a recent capacity assessment they had been deemed as having capacity to make a specific decision and had communicated their view through gesture. Most people told us they had not been involved in devising their support. One person said, “They do ask how I am, but they do not discuss my care plan with me.” Another told us, “I’m not sure if I have a care plan, they don’t discuss things with me”. We found people’s care records contained gaps or inconsistencies and often lacked information about people’s individual needs and wishes.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Whilst people told us they ‘wouldn’t hesitate’ to complain, systems to gather and act on feedback from people were not established. We could not be assured concerns or suggestions raised by people to staff or documented in quality reviews would be recorded and responded to appropriately.

Following our visit, the manager shared a tracker they had devised to monitor people’s feedback and suggestions and to record the actions taken in response to it.

Where people had raised formal complaints, the provider had responded and taken action, though not always within the timeframes stipulated in their policy.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was a lack of clear records about people’s needs and significant shortfalls in monitoring known risks. This, added to the failure by staff to reliably escalate concerns, meant we could not be assured people would be supported to seek or receive additional support in a timely way.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Care plans we reviewed contained varying levels of information about people’s backgrounds, wishes and needs. Many contained very limited information. Where information had been gathered, the data was not effectively monitored to ensure it was acted on. This meant people’s care was not always tailored to ensure their needs were met.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. There was no system in place to ensure people were offered the opportunity to engage in discussions about their future wishes. This shortfall had been identified in an internal audit in October 2024 but was yet to be addressed.