A&J Assisted Living T/A Radfield Home Care Loughborough, Charnwood & Melton Mowbray Also known as Radfield Home Care Loughborough, Charnwood & Melton Mowbray

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had their needs assessed and reviewed. The assessment process was comprehensive and considered peoples physical needs, communication needs and protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Assessments involved people and the family members (where appropriate), so people’s individual needs and preference were considered. Assessments included environmental factors and risk assessments. Review records we looked at showed all aspects of the care plan were reviewed with the person and or family member and their comments and feedback was recorded and acted on.

Following the initial review, each person received a check in call a week after the first visit then 3 monthly reviews or sooner if any changes were reported by people or staff.

Staff kept clear, comprehensive, person-centred records to support the ongoing review of the care provided. People told us and records showed evidence of appropriate action taken in response to any changes. Managers had effective oversight. Records were checked by the registered manager to ensure people’s needs were met and they contained all required information. Where shortfalls were identified, action was taken.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider was part of a franchise and was supported by compliance and assurance managers who shared sector wide updates about quality and safety.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met in line with current standards and evidence-based guidance. People had enough to eat and drink to prevent malnutrition or dehydration and were supported to manage their dietary needs and associated risks. This included where people were at risk of poor nutrition, dehydration, swallowing problems, and other medical conditions that affected their health. The registered manager told us there were no people using the service with nutritional risk at the time of our assessment but had systems and processes in place to use if these risks were identified. This included monitoring of daily intakes, referral to appropriate healthcare professionals and ongoing audit.

Staff training was in line with evidence based good practice and expected standards. All staff had completed ‘care certificate training’ within the first 12 weeks of commencing their employment. This nationally recognised training is designed to ensure staff are equipped with the required essential skills, knowledge and behaviours for safe and compassionate care. Dementia training had been delivered by external trainers to include recognised best practice and current dementia care standards.

The registered manager ensured staff were up to date with all required training and had their competency checked.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

People told us there was effective communication sharing between teams such as community nurses, GPs, and other external professionals.

Each person had a ‘hospital passport’. This document contained essential information about people’s needs including communication needs. Records assessed showed these contained detailed information about people’s required support, preferences, communication, prescribed medicines and key contacts.

Consistent staff teams ensured staff knew people well and understood their needs. Communication within the staff team was effective to ensure the delivery of person-centred care and support. Handovers took place when staff teams changed. For example, when live in care staff had time off, they ensured the staff replacing them had up to date information. New staff shadowed existing staff until they got to know people and understood their roles and responsibilities.

Effective communication was supported through team meetings, newsletters, training and supervision and comprehensive record keeping. Staff had access to managers and frequently contacted them with updates and changes.

Staff had access to information about people’s care and support needs including any changes through a secure online system. Staff teams kept in touch with each other on a secure on-line chat system about non private and confidential information. For example, they let the staff team know when they had loaded the washing machine during a care call so the staff member on the next call knew to empty it

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s care plans and records explained the support people required to enable them to stay well and access healthcare services, where necessary. For example, a person with high blood pressure had this checked 3 times a week and the reading was sent to office staff for review and action as required. Records for a person prescribed pain relief medicines instructed staff when this should be given and what symptoms staff should refer to a healthcare professional.

People with specific medical conditions, had detailed information within their care records which provided guidance for staff as to how this affected the person and how best to support them.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s healthcare needs. A staff member we spoke had detailed knowledge about a person’s health condition. They knew how to recognise any decline in the person’s baseline health and what action they should take including giving prescribed rescue medicine and contacting the GP.

Information about health promotion and wellbeing was provided to people, relatives and staff through a newsletter. Information about staying active was provided in an easy read format with pictorial examples of simple exercises people could do. Information about keeping warm and well during wintertime included tips on dressing warmly, keeping the home warm, staying active and falls prevention.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People we spoke with were overwhelmingly positive about the service provided. A person told us, “I am very satisfied with everything that they do for me, and I don’t think there is any real reason to improve anything.” Another said, “If anybody asked me, I would recommend the service.”

Managers and staff understood the expectations people had about the care they received and what positive outcomes looked like for them.

There was a robust approach to monitoring the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support and action was taken to continuously improve it. Systems and processes for the reviews of people’s care and support were effective and ongoing and included seeking people’s feedback. Survey results for 2025 were positive. People and staff said they would recommend the service to their friends and family.

Managers had clear oversight of people’s care and support.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support, and their consent was always sought. Care planning and risk assessment records included the requirement to always seek consent before providing care and support.

The provider had a policy and employee handbook about consent. Staff had training and understood their responsibilities to obtain consent. Where people lacked capacity to make a decision, they followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires, that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. Where people lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests, and as least restrictive as possible.

Capacity to make decisions was always assumed unless an assessment indicated otherwise. Records regarding MCA were not always as detailed as they could be. One person had fluctuating capacity which staff understood but this was not clearly recorded. The registered manager agreed to make changes to improve these records and told us about action taken such as seeking further support from a senior manager and arranging refresher training for staff about MCA recording. Records showed staff had worked closely with this person’s family members to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interest.