Radis Community Care (Stanbridge House)

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 Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care planning and support plans lacked essential person-centred information about people’s preferences, physical, mental, emotional and social needs. For example, 1 person’s care plan did not include any details for significant relationships. This meant that staff did not have all the personal information needed to adequately support or engage with the person.

Where people received support with personal care, there was limited information regarding how they liked to receive personal care. Therefore staff were unable to ensure person centred care was completed. One person’s daily records indicated that they received support with continence care, but this was not included within their care planning. This meant staff did not receive any guidance on what continence care was required and how to monitor any risks.

Changes in people’s care were shared during team meetings. Notes from team meetings evidenced updates on peoples’ needs and care. This meant that staff were informed about changes in peoples’ needs. People said, “Me and my sister did the care plan”, and “care plan was done with me and Radis.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The staff team knew people who used the service well.

A professional told us “The registered manager would liaise with multi care services [district nurses, doctors etc.]. When [the person] was on palliative care, the registered manager and her team leaders were absolutely amazing”. This meant the provider worked well with professionals. Registered manager told us, “[Person] is still in hospital. I have requested to have these things [palliative care visits, bed rails] and extra calls for fluids as I’d noticed [person] wasn’t putting the cup to his mouth, before he comes home.” This showed that the registered manager understood the needs of the people and made appropriate referrals for extra care when needed.

One person said, “I go to residents meetings and if I miss 1, they send the minutes round.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff had completed equality and diversity, mental health awareness, dementia and learning disabilities training. People told us they could read and understand their care plans.

We received mixed feedback about people being able to access the provider’s complaint policy. People told us that they would feel confident to raise a complaint. The provider assessed people’s communication needs as part of their care, in line with accessible information standards. This meant people understood information provided to them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider’s compliance team sought feedback from people using the service, however they had not collected an adequate sample of feedback on a consistent basis. Only 7 people’s views had been requested in 2025 which meant information on satisfaction was limited and could not be assumed to be indicative of the care given by the provider. The provider’s policy states that remedial actions should be taken if satisfaction levels drop beneath a certain percentage. There were no actions taken when previous feedback in 2024 from 5 people indicated only 80% satisfaction. There were no formal feedback forms for relatives to provide feedback. However, the registered manager told us that there was a compliment book in place.

People told us, “[I] got a questionnaire, [but I] didn’t fill it in,” and “[I wasn’t asked] for feedback.” Residents meetings were held and minutes were sent to each person following the meetings. People we spoke with did not have any complaints to raise about the service. One person told us, “I have no complaints.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it but visit times were not always adhered to or completed in full. The provider made referrals to other health professionals when appropriate.

The provider had a provision to answer pendant alarms, and the responsibility for this was shared between staff on duty. Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to escalating concerns to the management team to protect people from experiencing any barriers to their care and support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The registered manager had used inappropriate labels to describe people to staff in team meetings and documentation. This did not give any reassurance that people were not discriminated against. Where staff had not treated people with respect, the registered manager did not take any action to prevent reoccurrence. The registered manager and staff told us,1 staff member spoke inappropriately to a person but there was no disciplinary procedure instigated. This staff member proceeded to speak inappropriately to another person on a different occasion.

The registered manager made timely referrals to external health and social care professionals to support individuals in accessing the right care and support when needed

.

People were not always 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.

At the time of our assessment, the provider was not currently supporting people with end-of-life care. Care plans did not document any detailed future planning for important life changes, including possible end-of-life care, and not all staff had completed appropriate training.

One person told us, “I have a DNR in place,” but we found there were no further details in their care plan for end of life care.