Radis Community Care (Oak Tree 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 consistently ensure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment. They did not always work in partnership with people to agree how changes in their needs should be responded to.

Care plans were written positively and focused on people’s strengths, however, care plans did not always include sufficient detail about people’s preferences or how they wished to receive their care and support. Daily records did not consistently reflect the care provided, which reduced assurance that people’s needs and choices were being met in line with their care plans.

Daily notes demonstrated evidence of people receiving good quality care, evidencing staff knew individuals well and regularly monitored their wellbeing. However, daily note audits did not always identify concerns such as refusal of personal care or eating and drinking, meaning care plans were not always updated to reflect current needs.

During the assessment, we identified some inaccuracies within care planning documentation. While these issues did not demonstrate a systemic failure of person‑centred care, they highlighted inconsistencies in how people’s current needs and wishes were recorded. Some relatives also reported concerns, which indicated partnership working was not always experienced positively.

Relatives told us, their loved ones often appeared unkempt and shared concerns that staff did not always remain for the allocated time required to meet people’s personal care needs. We also heard people’s choices around mealtimes were not always followed, as staff were only able to support people with microwave meals.

Where people had raised concerns about their care, including inconsistencies in staff support, we did not always see evidence actions had been taken or recorded to address these concerns. This meant people could not be assured feedback was consistently used to improve care and ensure it reflected their individual preferences and needs.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community, which supported joined‑up care, flexibility and continuity.

Relatives generally told us they felt the service understood people’s individual needs and responded appropriately when concerns arose. Emergency services were contacted promptly, and referrals were made to healthcare professionals to ensure people received additional support where needed.

While some relatives raised concerns about staff understanding people’s support needs, many expressed confidence in the service overall. We observed positive examples of continuity of care, where people were supported by regular carers who stayed for the full duration of their visits. This consistency helped to promote familiarity, build relationships and support people’s choices and wellbeing.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats that were tailored to meet people’s individual needs.

Care plans contained detailed guidance about how to communicate effectively with people using the service, including their preferred methods of communication. This helped to support personalised interactions and ensure people were understood.

Care documentation also included examples of how to support people with cognitive barriers. This provided staff with clear guidance on how to adapt their communication to ensure people were supported to understand information, express their views and make choices.

People and relatives told us, the manager and office staff were approachable and accessible. This meant people knew who to contact if they needed to raise concerns, discuss their care or seek further information.

The provider made it accessible for people to share feedback, ideas and raise concerns or complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and, where appropriate, informed them of changes made as a result of feedback.

Where one person was not accepting support with personal care, the family had suggested implementing support from a different gender of staff. The service took actions to ensure they could support this which had a positive impact on the person.

Complaints were reviewed and responded to promptly. Complaints were investigated appropriately, with clear documentation outlining actions taken and explanations provided to demonstrate how concerns had been resolved.

Although there were no formal feedback surveys in place at the time of the inspection, people had regular opportunities to comment on their care during quality monitoring visits. People were recorded as being involved in the development of their care plans and were asked for feedback about their care, which was positive.

However, on at least one occasion, negative feedback had been recorded without clear evidence of follow‑up or actions taken in response. This reduced assurance that all feedback was consistently used to improve care.

Relatives told us, the service responded appropriately when their loved ones were unwell. However, some relatives shared when they raised concerns, they did not always receive feedback about the actions taken, which affected their confidence in how concerns were managed and communicated.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them.

People had equal access to care, treatment and support because as the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments.

Staff and leaders did not consistently demonstrate that they actively listened to or acted on information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes. As a result, people’s care was not always sufficiently tailored to meet their individual circumstances or needs.

Managers demonstrated an awareness of the types of discrimination and inequality people using the service may experience. However, care plans did not always clearly describe how people’s health needs presented for them or how these needs should be responded to in practice.

In addition, best interest decision making was not always evident where decisions had been made which the person had difficulty with, which meant decisions about care were not always clearly recorded or justified.

These shortcomings meant the provider did not always promote equality, fully consider individual circumstances, or consistently protect people’s rights.

People were 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.

Referrals had been made to professionals to support with end-of-life care, so they could stay in their homes.

Staff had completed training around end-of-life care. Care records included details about people’s preference for how they wished to be supported at the end of their life, reflecting individual needs and choices.