Radis Community Care (Diamond Court) Also known as Diamond Court Extra Care

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 the service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. We found improvements were needed to the provider’s governance arrangements around care planning and incidents and accidents including referrals and notifications. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service

This service scored 62 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on supporting people with their individual needs with high quality care. The provider expected staff to provide care that was professional, open and honest and that care was provided passionately, valuing people, through teamwork, ownership and innovation. The registered manager and staff were passionate about providing people with care which respected them and their individual wishes. People felt supported by staff who were kind and caring. People felt able to raise any concerns should they need to and where they raised queries with us, we shared this with the registered manager.

The provider had inclusive leaders who supported the service to deliver care and support that embodied the culture and value of the organisation. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and the team leaders. Team leaders were accessible and available to staff within the building and staff felt it was a nice place to work. Staff comments included, “(Name of team leader) is amazing really good,” and “The best management here.” The registered manager spoke positively of the culture of the organisation, and felt they had a good staff team who supported each other and people well.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff felt supported and able to raise any concerns with the registered manager or team leaders if needed. Staff had supervision and competency reviews although they felt some improvements could be made to team meetings as they had on occasions been cancelled. The team leaders and the registered manager had an open-door policy where staff could raise any concerns with them if needed.

The provider valued their workforce and they worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and staff had their skills and competencies reviewed to ensure they were able to support people with the best care and support possible.

The provider did not ensure there was suitable governance arrangements in place that identified shortfalls. For example, where care plans needed more information about the person such as what support they needed with their diabetes care, catheter care, skin care and any associated risks. We also identified shortfalls to ensuring incidents and accidents were reviewed and actions taken and referrals being made as required along with 2 notifications to CQC. Some staff also needed training in using equipment should a person fall and need assistance. Although people did feel able to raise concerns they also raised with us various aspects of their care they wished to discuss with the service. We asked the registered manager to follow this up with people. We will review their response. The providers quality assurance systems had not identified these shortfalls before our inspection.

The registered manager and provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. People had their feedback sought through care plan reviews and customer surveys. Positive feedback had been provided from the last customer satisfaction survey completed in 2024. However, no survey had been undertaken since to establish how satisfied people are. The registered manager worked in partnership with the assisted living complex manager. People were supported to access community groups and social groups such as exercise classes, gardening initiatives and an onsite library.

The provider was not always able to demonstrate continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation along with demonstrating all actions where taken when required.

For example, although the provider undertook a monthly audit of incidents, we found 2 incidents where we were not assured the incidents had been reviewed to ensure satisfactory actions were taken and notifications and referrals were made as required. We raised this with the registered manager and area manager following our inspection so they could review how incidents and accidents were reviewed along with any learning and actions needed.