Radis Community Care (Waverley Court)

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People and relatives spoke positively about interactions with staff. A person said, “The carers are very good to me.” Another person said, “Staff are kind and caring.” Staff could demonstrate how they ensured people’s privacy and dignity was maintained and feedback received supported this. A quality survey conducted in April 2026 was positive. People stated they were given choices, were treated with respect and staff were caring.
 

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.

Assessment and care plan information was not consistent or accurate for the provider to ensure they were meeting people’s needs and preferences. A staff member said, “We have to follow the care plan and we have to do the personal care, it tells us we need to do that or don’t need to do that.” However, 2 people did not have a care plan. Therefore, there was no guidance for staff to follow to support people safely and in their preferred way.

Staff treated people as individuals and demonstrated a good understanding of the communication needs of individuals they had supported long-term. However, information was not yet in place for people newer to the service. While staff showed an awareness of people’s cultural, religious, and communication preferences, this was not supported by formal pre-assessment documentation or care plans detailing how these needs should be met. Despite these documentation gaps, individuals confirmed their personal preferences were respected, with 1 person stating, “I prefer female carers.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

The service aimed to support people to remain independent. People told us their independence was encouraged. Staff facilitated people’s independence by ensuring people were involved in their care and support. A relative said, “The regular carers try to get [Name of person] to do things for themselves with guidance.” People’s choices were sought and respected. A staff member said, “You have to know the client, know what they like, it’s all about them. Everyone is so different.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded to their immediate needs. Staff we spoke with demonstrated they knew people well and asked people for their views and wishes. For example, about what they would like to eat or how they would like to be supported. A staff member said, “We see the same people and it is nice they know us.” However, information recorded around people’s needs was not always in place or up to date. Staff were clear about reporting any concerns.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff who knew people well and responded accordingly. A person said, “Staff know your routine and how you like things done,” A relative said, “If [Name of person] asks the carers, they will read her mail for her or remind her about appointments.” People were supported to utilise the facilities available to them on site, which enhanced their well-being. A person said, “I have made friends here by using the facilities.”
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were not valued by the provider as their well-being had not been fully supported. Staff told us they enjoyed their roles. However, systems for staff to provide regular feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences had not been fully utilised. Such as supervisions, staff meetings and availability of senior leaders. This had meant staff were not enabled to perform at their best. People and their relatives fed back they had noticed the impact on staff member’s well-being because of how the service had been led and managed. A relative said, “The carers that stepped up when there was no manager went above and beyond, but it still wasn’t enough.”