Radis Community Care (Waverley Court)

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were not fully reflective of their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. They were not always completed or regularly reviewed to ensure they were up to date and accurate. The quality of information in people’s care plans varied. For example, we reviewed 2 care plans where people’s history, social network and preferences were detailed. However, 2 other people had no care plans. This meant their care needs had not been fully assessed. Staff had no guidance on their care needs or how to support them in their preferred way. This included a lack of information around health conditions, mobility and a sensory impairment. A staff member said, “A few new people have not got a care plan up together yet.” We received mixed feedback about relevant people being involved in care reviews if this was people’s preference. Relatives said, “There have been care plan reviews done when changes have been needed and we were included in them,” and “They completely left me out of the care planning process.”

Reviews of care had occurred previously with people. However, these had not been completed consistently to ensure information was current and in line with people’s preferences. The provider recognised this and had included this on their service action plan. People told us they had noticed positive changes since the new manager had started in reviewing their care needs. A person said, “I did have a sort of care plan a while back, but then I met the new manager and they went through it with me in much more detail. I feel now that they [the service] understand my challenges.”

The service relied on assessments conducted by other agencies at the point of admission and were not always reviewed when people’s needs changed. For example, a discharge from hospital. This meant information was not gathered to explore people’s preferred goals and outcomes from the service. Whilst documentation gained by assessments from other agencies stated people’s religion or culture, care plans did not explore how this was observed or expressed for people in their daily life and in people’s preferences of care delivery.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider had not ensured continuity of care for people. Inconsistent management had led to shortfalls and the service not developing effective working relationships with other professionals. For example, a relative told us their family member’s needs had changed and management of the service at the time said an assessment would occur. The relative said, “We have heard nothing since.” Another relative said, “Radis took over the ordering of [Name of person] medicines, but when [Name of staff member] left there was nobody in post to guarantee continuity of care, so I took it on again.”

People were positive about staff who they saw consistently and had developed good relationships with. However, people and their relatives told us the quality of care varied at weekends and with agency staff. A relative said, “Get quite a bit of agency staff. Not knowing anything, got to talk through where the medicines are.”
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available to be provided to people in accessible formats. For example, the service user guide was available in large print. However, other accessible formats were not seen in use for people. This meant people with impairments or sensory losses may not be able to access the information they required. A newsletter was produced. A relative said, “There is a newsletter that gets put in the flats, but a lot of people can’t read it.” The service explained to people how information collected about them was kept and shared in line with data protection requirements.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Complaints had not been recorded in line with the provider’s policy. A complaint outcome letter was available from November 2025. However, there were no other details documented of the initial complaint or actions taken in response. A concern raised by a person using the service in December 2025 had not been fully documented to show action taken in response to the information raised. The provider had not ensured feedback was gathered to enable the positive sharing of work conducted. Feedback was not actively sought from staff or others through meetings or surveys. A stakeholder survey conducted in April 2026 received positive feedback overall. However, only people who use the service had contributed. The survey was open to families, next of kin, staff and other people including professionals. Actions taken in response to the feedback gathered were not recorded or monitored.

People, relatives and staff told us they felt comfortable in raising any concerns. A person said, “I have no complaints.” A relative said, “If I’m not happy about something I will speak up.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were experienced in adapting care to meet people’s needs and ensure reasonable adjustments were made. We observed staff interacting with people with people in different ways. For example, by speaking in plain English, by ensuring they were close by so someone could hear or by being alert to body language and hand gestures. The provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff received training in areas such equality, diversity and inclusion, culturally inclusive care and dementia and were aware of people’s protected characteristics. Staff were aware of people’s culture and religion who they had consistently supported. A staff member said, “I go with an open mind and treat everyone the same.”

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. People’s wishes were not fully explored with them to ensure future care, intervention and end of life choices were known. 3 care plans reviewed contained no information within this area. 2 other people did not have any care planning information. This meant information relevant to a hospital admission or a change in the person’s presentation would not be known.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care. Care plans for some people described things people liked, calmed or comforted them. For example, specific family relationships or sensory lighting.