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
• 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 service. This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 89 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The providers highly person centred core values and ethos were shared by staff. People we spoke with were overwhelmingly positive about the service they received and told us how this had a positive impact on their lives. They praised the staff team and described the respectful and positive relationships they had with them.

The provider demonstrated an exceptional commitment to ensuring all staff not only understood but fully embodied the organisation’s vision and values. These were consistently reinforced through a highly effective recruitment process, a comprehensive induction, and a well‑structured programme of ongoing training and support.

From their first day in post, staff were exposed to a culture that prioritised excellence, compassion and a strong person‑centred focus. Managers ensured new staff were fully aware of what was expected of them and consistently modelled the behaviours and values they required staff to uphold.

Records for newly recruited staff showed a robust and thoughtfully designed programme of support. Following initial training, staff received a series of structured weekly check‑ins, both before and after their care calls, ensuring they had the knowledge, resources and confidence required to deliver safe, compassionate and high‑quality care. Managers routinely asked staff how they were feeling, discussed any concerns, and reinforced that support was always available. This proactive approach meant were well‑prepared and able to seek help without hesitation.

New team members were paired with experienced colleagues for shadowing, and these visits were thoroughly reviewed to support reflective learning and ongoing development. Feedback was gathered from the people using the service, experienced staff and the new recruits themselves. This information was to evaluate performance, strengthen skills, and celebrate strengths. Existing staff were actively encouraged to give constructive feedback about new colleagues’ capabilities and suitability for the role. New staff were not allocated independent care calls until they felt confident and people using the service and other staff were satisfied with their performance. This process contributed to a strong culture of shared responsibility and continuous improvement.

The provider carried out an annual survey to seek feedback from people about the quality and safety of the service provided, Survey results for 2025 were overwhelmingly positive. Eleven people responded to the survey and rated outcomes as mostly ‘excellent or good’. Questions asked were about care staff performance including; their punctuality, understanding needs and competency to meet them, kindness and ability to respect dignity and promote independence. None of the responses were negative.

There was unanimous feedback from staff about feeling supported by the management team. Staff spoke positively about their roles; they were proud of the service and were motivated to achieve good outcomes for people. A staff member told us the ethos of the service was person centred and caring. They said, “The whole team are wonderful. If it’s found staff are not as empathic as they should be, managers will invite them for a meeting, if they don’t improve, they have to leave.”

Staff and managers demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the service. Staff at all levels had a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights, and they prioritised safe, high-quality, compassionate care.

The provider had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider’s culture and values were embodied throughout the workforce and organisation. Without exception, people we spoke with praised the leadership team, they told us managers were accessible, open and honest. They responded to any queries or concerns quickly and made changes to improve quality and safety. Changes were always achieved through consultation with people and staff. Innovative ideas were considered and tried out until a solution could be found that met people’s needs and preferences.

People told us how managers had made changes in response to difficult situations and were grateful for this support and described the positive impact this had on their lives.

There was a clear and effective management structure. Managers had the qualifications, experience, skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. All managers had achieved or were working towards senior level qualifications designed for managers and team leaders in adult care services. Managers had an in-depth knowledge of people’s needs and preferences. They achieved this through frequent and ongoing communication with people and staff and through robust audit and governance systems and processes.

There was an on-call system so that a manager was on call day and night to respond to any circumstances where people or staff required support. Records showed staff utilised this support system. Any ‘on call support’ provided to staff was discussed each week at manager’s meetings so any additional support required by people or staff could be implemented.

Without exception, staff we spoke with told us managers were always open and accessible. When they sought support or further information or had any concerns, managers were responsive and acted. For example, when staff were concerned about a person during a care call, they called the office and the manager spoke directly to the person using the service on the telephone. The manager knew the person well and was able to provide immediate reassurance and support. They also contacted the person’s family member to review care and support arrangements and reduce further risks. This demonstrated an inclusive person-centred approach.

Staff we spoke with were positive about the provider and managers. They told us they were highly motivated and supported to deliver person-centred care. Two staff members told us how the provider and managers had supported them when they had personal difficulties. The provider’s staff survey results in 2025 were positive in all areas. For the question, how do you rate ‘Radfield home care as an employer?’, from 8 respondents 6 gave a rating of excellent and 2 a rating of good.

The provider had highly effective and well‑embedded systems that enabled effective communication between people, staff and managers. Staff described communication processes as supportive and effective, with training, team meetings, supervision and competency assessments taking place frequently and used proactively to drive continual improvement. These structures ensured that the delivery of care was consistently safe, responsive and compassionate.

Leaders were alert to any examples of poor culture that may affect the quality of people’s care and have a detrimental impact on staff. They addressed this quickly. Managers understood the requirements and recommendations made by CQC. They keep up to date with all relevant changes and communicated these effectively to their team.

People and staff were kept informed about business changes. For example, for a recent office change people were kept up to date about the relocation plans and about the timeline of events through a newsletter and this was discussed in team meetings. This approach supported confidence and stability throughout the transition.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people knew they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider and registered manager acted with openness, honesty and transparency. They promoted staff empowerment and encouraged staff to raise concerns. This was facilitated through a culture of openness. For example, meeting minutes for the December 2025 staff meeting reminded staff about reporting any concerns and about accurate record keeping to support effective investigation. Staff had supervision and competency checks and were asked if they had any concerns about any aspect of the service.

People and staff said managers were accessible and approachable and fostered a culture of speaking up.

We were given examples of when prompt action was taken in response to concerns raised. People told us they experienced a prompt response and resolution when they contacted managers at the office. They told us managers sought their feedback frequently.

The provider was had policy and procedures in place to fulfil their requirements about ‘duty of candour’. This meant when something goes wrong, people received a sincere and timely apology and were told about any actions being taken to prevent the same happening again. The registered manager had sight of all incident reports and complaints and checked to see if the duty of candour regulation applied.

The provider’s policies about ‘freedom to speak up’ were in line with good practice guidance and requirements. These included a policy about whistle blowing (the policy encouraged staff to raise concerns and set out how staff raising concerns would be protected), a complaints policy, safeguarding policy and advice about sexual harassment.

Staff had training about speaking up if they had any concerns. Examples of high-profile whistle blowing cases involving significant safety concerns were used for discussion and learning. Staff were encouraged to contact the provider’s national office or external agencies if they were not satisfied their concerns were being appropriately addressed.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manger was committed to recognising and valuing the cultural and religious diversity of both people who used the service and staff. Personal beliefs, traditions and practices were supported and celebrated. Staffs cultural and religious need including gender preferences were considered. We were given examples of where changes were made to ensure staff members felt comfortable. In response to staff feedback, changes were made when scheduling care calls. This demonstrated managers took time to understand staff equality and diversity needs and took action to ensure staff did not feel uncomfortable or compromised.

Staff were overwhelmingly positive about the leadership and culture of the service and said they were treated well.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had highly effective governance systems and processes designed to monitor risk and improve the quality of the service. Weekly audits undertaken by the registered manager were thorough and consistently applied. These ensured staff attended calls punctually and delivered care, fully in line with each person’s care plan.

They checked staff were following policies and procedures in a safe way and that staff members’ required skills and knowledge were up to date. Call times were monitored and checked. The provider’s electronic system alerted managers of any non-attendance or late staff arrivals so they could take action. Systems were in place to cover any last-minute staff absence. There had been 3 delayed calls in the last 12 month period, action was taken to ensure the person was safe by only moving the call because it was safe to do so or requesting family support.

Where monitoring systems showed staff had not remained for the full allocated time, managers acted promptly and undertook a thorough review. This included speaking directly with the person using the service to understand their preferences. In one example, the person confirmed they were fully satisfied with staff punctuality and reliability and explained that on occasion they had chosen to end the visit early. The person had capacity to make these decisions and staff respected this.

Another example of staff running over the expected call times showed the call had been reviewed to check the allocated time was appropriate to meet the person’s needs. Staff were asked to remind the person when there was 15 minutes left on the call so they could manage their expectations and check they had everything they required.

We were given examples of changes made to call times and to care plans following audits which identified shorter or longer staff attendance at the call. Staff were often flexible in response to people’s changing needs and preferences, and reasons for changes were recorded.

As well as ongoing internal audits, an annual external audit was carried out by the franchise compliance manager. All aspects of the service were checked. An initial score was awarded with an action plan, and a revisit audit to check all action was taken. The provider was expected to achieve compliance with this audit of 90% or above. The provider scored 93% for their 2025 audit.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to ensuring the voices of people using the service were central to governance and decision‑making at every level. People, their relatives, staff and external professionals were routinely invited to share their views, and this feedback was used consistently and effectively to drive improvements. Regular care reviews, surveys and ongoing informal feedback ensured managers had a comprehensive understanding of people’s experiences, needs and expectations.

There was clear evidence that people’s views were valued and acted upon. Managers responded promptly and ensured any concerns or suggestions led to positive change. People told us they were listened to and respected.

Staff had their competency checked by field care supervisors every month. This meant the person using the service was involved and asked for their feedback about staff performance. The staff member was observed at the care call to check they were delivering safe and compassionate care and support. All aspects of the call were assessed such as punctuality, if staff had their PPE and ID badge, how they greeted and communicated with the person, if they obtained consent before delivering any care and support, was hand hygiene effective and medicines administered in a safe way.

Staff’s views were sought in relation to people’s care and progress, which enabled them to directly affect and improve the quality of care people received. Staff gave us examples of changes made to improve the quality of the service and people’s experience in response to feedback they had provided.

There were robust plans in place for business continuity in case of emergency or natural disasters, such as adverse weather events and all staff were confident around this.The provider had a flood risk contingency plan and addresses in flood prone areas had been identified along with action staff should take in this event.

The provider maintained a risk register and primary needs register for all people who used the service. These documents allowed managers to quickly access accurate information about the type of care and support being delivered, their primary needs and known risks for each person using the service These included risks graded as ‘high medium and low’ such as pressure ulcer risk, medicine risks, the person’s living situation and support network. This meant the provider could take appropriate action in the event of any disruption to business continuity based on people’s risk and needs. These documents supported local service planning, regulatory reporting and quality assurance.

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The service was embedded in the community it served and considered a valued partner by others in the community.

Feedback from external professionals was positive. Feedback from a partner agency described the service as excellent. They said the service always adhered to agreed timelines for taking on new packages of care and were responsive.

An external healthcare professional told us staff at the service were always very organised, communicated well and followed instructions/plans. They told us staff were approachable and helpful in arranging care and support.

The provider was involved with an initiative known as ‘Social Prescribers’ in the North Leicestershire area. This initiative was developed to reduce loneliness and social isolation. The provider developed a Christmas companionship initiative, working closely with Social Prescribers to provide free companionship visits to individuals identified as being at risk of loneliness.

The provider told us a key outcome of this initiative was the development of a strong, ongoing relationship with local social prescribers. This supported people who used the service through connecting individuals with local social and community groups to reduce ongoing isolation, signposting them to support services aligned with individual needs and interests, and providing access to financial advice and guidance.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The provider had a continuous improvement plan as part of the governance and audit cycle. This identified areas for improvement, how this would be achieved and who was responsible for this action. For example, the improvement plan included changes to recruitment and shift patterns to further improve the consistency of staff and teams.

Staff had access to ongoing learning and training and could request additional training to support their role. The registered manager told us that during supervisions they asked staff if there was any training they feel they needed. They gave us an example of a staff member requesting additional end of life training and this was allocated via the online learning system.The provider celebrated and rewarded staff success and innovation

The service has strong external relationships that support improvement and innovation. The provider took part in the Alzheimer’s Society ‘dementia friends’ initiative. This initiative was designed to increase awareness and understanding of how to support people living with dementia.