Archived: Radis Community Care (Milton Village)

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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture theycreated promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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 demonstrated a clear shared vision, strategy, and culture focused on continuous improvement. The leadership team had made significant efforts to foster a positive culture within the service, becoming a visible and approachable presence for people, staff, and visitors alike. They actively worked to enhance the overall experience by creating a welcoming community atmosphere through organising clubs, events, and activities, which people told us had positively impacted their quality of life. The registered manager articulated a clear and realistic vision for the service, demonstrating a strong understanding of the range of needs the service was equipped to support.

The provider had inclusive and responsive leaders who demonstrated a clear understanding of the context in which care and support were delivered. They reflected the values and culture of both the organisation and its workforce. During the inspection, the registered manager and wider leadership team were open to feedback and took prompt action to address the concerns raised. They had identified their own professional development needs and undertaken relevant training to strengthen their skills and knowledge, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement and effective leadership.

The provider had established a generally supportive culture where people and their relatives were able to express their views and raise concerns. Several mechanisms were in place to facilitate this, including opportunities to attend meetings, submit feedback questionnaires, and direct contact with staff or management either in person, by phone, or email. These options gave people different ways to comment on the service or highlight any issues.

Some relatives said they felt able to speak to staff or managers when needed, and that communication was generally open. People using the service also reported that they felt able to voice their preferences or concerns, and that staff would usually listen.

Staff described the management team as approachable and said they could raise concerns or offer suggestions without fear of negative consequences. Team meetings and supervisions provided opportunities to share ideas or discuss issues. While not all staff had experienced direct follow-up to feedback they gave, most felt their input was acknowledged.

The provider fostered a positive and inclusive culture where people felt empowered to speak up, knowing their views would be listened to and valued. Staff spoke positively about the management team and said they felt confident raising any issues or concerns. Leaders demonstrated openness and transparency in their engagement with staff, which contributed to a culture of trust, respect, and continuous improvement.

The provider had effective governance systems in place to oversee all aspects of care provision. These systems ensured that risks were regularly assessed, care quality was closely monitored, and outcomes were recorded. Leadership actively monitored performance through regular audits and meetings, using the findings to identify areas for improvement. Documents demonstrated actions were identified and followed up, fostering a culture of learning and service development. When issues arose, action plans were developed and implemented to enhance care quality and improve people’s experiences. However, governance systems would benefit from greater detail and a stronger emphasis on the analysis, evaluation, and recording of findings, to further support transparency, accountability, and sustained service improvement.

People receiving care reported positive experiences, highlighting that staff were skilled, caring, and attentive to their individual needs. This demonstrated the provider’s focus on person-centred care and maintaining high standards in daily support.

The provider worked well with external organisations such as health professionals, social services, and safeguarding teams to ensure coordinated and responsive care. Regular communication and collaboration helped to address people’s changing needs quickly and effectively. This was evident when we viewed the providers safeguarding records.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of their duty to collaborate and work in partnership to ensure services operated in a coordinated and person-centred way. They shared information and learning with external partners and engaged in joint working to drive continuous improvement. The leadership team recognised the value of proactive engagement with stakeholders to enhance service quality and outcomes for people.

The registered manager also promoted a strong sense of community within the service, fostering opportunities for companionship, social interaction, and meaningful activity both within the service the wider local area. These initiatives contributed positively to people’s emotional wellbeing and helped reduce social isolation, in line with best practice for holistic, person-centred care.

The provider had systems in place to learn from incidents, feedback from people using the service and staff, as well as findings from their own audits. There were clear processes for reviewing and analysing this information, which helped the provider identify where improvements were needed.

Quality improvement plans were developed with specific goals and timescales, though sometimes these could be more detailed. Overall, the provider showed a steady commitment to making changes based on what they learned, supporting ongoing improvements in the quality of care and support.