Radis Community Care (Stanbridge House)

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 Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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.

The registered manager told us about an incident in which people’s dignity was not upheld when carrying out care. The registered manager did not carry out a robust investigation and put effective safeguarding measures place.

However, people told us staff were kind, helpful and respectful. Feedback included, “the bulk [of care staff] are professional and try to engage with me, [they] are supportive.”

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’s care plans did not always provide staff with detailed information on people’s preferences and relationships that were important to them. Where concerns had been identified around people’s relationships, there was not any specific information about the concerns, or how staff should identify and mitigate the risks. One person’s care plan stated that the person may become agitated with their spouse, but there was no information on how to care for either person in this circumstance.

People’s care plans contained limited information about peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had limited access to knowledge about these issues. Staff told us, “There is no information or guidance in care plan as to how to manage [the relationship]. Nothing stated as to how to deal with them or their temperaments. [Person] will shout when unhappy and we are not told how to deal with them.” This showed evidence of a lack of a person centred approach.

However, one person said, “[the staff are] kind, helpful and very respectful.”

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.

People’s care plans contained information that was important to people that supported people’s independence, choice and control. However, there was limited evidence within people’s daily notes that evidenced people were supported to carry out routines that were important to them. People who use the service had asked the provider not to allow certain staff care for them and this was adhered to.

However, staff told us, “I ask the service users and involve them in their care. I always give choice and provide information for them to make a decision.”

People said, “they [the staff] listen to what I want” and “they [the staff] listen and do what I ask.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People were not always supported to raise concerns with the Care Quality Commission where they had requested to do so. One person had expressed a wish to speak with the Care Quality Commission but was not given details on how to do this. Care plans contained limited guidance to enable staff to respond to people’s immediate needs. Staff did not have the skills or guidance to support people who refused personal care. No actions had been put in place to protect people from the risk of self-neglect.

The service provides an emergency bell response service. Records evidence that one person’s call was cut short due to the emergency bell being used. The registered manager told us staff did not return to the scheduled call to complete the visit. This meant that the person was at an increased risk of not having had the necessary support required.

The registered manager provided examples of where they were responsive to people’s needs, escalating concerns to professionals to ensure people received the appropriate care. One person said, “They come as quick as they can. I rang them last night as I’d panicked when I had woke up coughing and they stayed with me until I was calm again.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt cared for by the registered manager. Staff told us the registered manager was very approachable and would listen to any wellbeing concerns they had. Staff told us, “I do feel confident in the support I have received from [registered manager] and the previous two team leaders. One example would be when I was having confidence issues within my role as a support worker. They were there to help me and told me of the compliments I had received and asked me if there was any training I felt I needed to give me that confidence.”