Radis Community Care (Waverley Court)

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 this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 46 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had clear aims and values for the organisation which were on display at the service and on the provider’s website. However, the aims and values for the service had not been reflected in people’s care experiences due to the impact of how the service had been managed. This included a turnover of service managers, the registered manager not being visible and a lack of effective governance systems meaning improvements needed were not identified. Systems were not used to promote and embed the provider’s values. A relative said, “I was initially impressed when Radis first took over and promoted themselves as a family company who told us there would be someone onsite in the office at all times. In a very short space of time, the office was manned part-time only and it became obvious that the staff were not at all supported.”

Inconsistent management and support had led to staff not feeling valued by the provider. A relative said, “A few [staff] have left because of the lack of support from management.” Another relative said, “Radis has not come up with what they promised. Sometimes at the weekend, there is nobody around at all.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders failed to support managers and staff, manage risks, or deliver the organisational vision. The registered manager lacked visibility and oversight, which negatively impacted managers, staff and the quality of care. There had been a high turnover of service managers and times when no service manager was in post. Relatives told us of high managerial turnover and a lack of support for senior staff. A relative said, “[Name of senior staff member] was very good, but they did not get any support and moved on. You can understand why.” Governance systems and provider oversight had not identified or addressed these quality and consistency issues.

People and staff spoke positively about the service manager new in post. A person said, “The new manager seems lovely and is trying to get things right. [Name of manager] seems to know what they are doing, so I am sure it will be OK.” The manager had the skills, knowledge and compassion to make positive changes at the service. Recent management changes had been communicated to people and their families. A relative said, “I have not met the new manager but I did get a letter.”
 

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Systems in place including supervisions, staff meetings and surveys were not being consistently utilised to enable staff to speak up. This had impacted the culture of the service and staff morale. Two team meetings had occurred in 2025 but none in 2026. This meant staff were not given opportunities to raise suggestions and ideas.

Staff told us they were now supported better due to there being a manager present. The manager was visible and available to people, relatives and staff to ensure communication and feedback developed.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Leaders had not identified and taken action promptly to improve the disparities in the experience of staff. Staff members were completing additional duties, due to a lack of management at the service. A relative said, “The carers were left to run the place themselves for weeks on end. I don’t know how they did it.” Leaders had not fully engaged with staff to ensure their voices were heard as staff meetings and supervisions had not been regularly held. Organisational systems to support equality and diversity in practice were not being utilised. For example, through information gathered in recruitment processes.

Staff received training in equality and diversity. The service had a diverse staff team which brought a range of skills and knowledge. The staff team worked well together and supported each other.
 

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems had not been effective to assess the quality and safety of the service both at manager and provider level. Management audits had not been regularly conducted to identify areas of improvements in risk management, care planning, assessment information, medicines management, mental capacity assessments, gathering feedback, sharing of learning and supervision of staff. A recent provider level report had identified a range of shortfalls across the service and created a service improvement plan to address these areas. However, this had not identified all areas and did not include specific details to demonstrate how improvements would be progressed.

Systems within the service had not been used to ensure the service and records were coordinated and organised. Such as accident, incident and care planning records. Information and documents had not been regularly reviewed to ensure they were accurate and up to date. For example, people’s risk assessments.

There was a lack of effective leadership due to roles and responsibilities being unclear. Senior leaders had not identified shortfalls found during this assessment through their governance systems. The registered manager had not been present, nor had oversight in monitoring and reviewing the quality and safety of the service. Service managers had seen a high turnaround which had impacted the service as information was not organised or reviewed. A relative said, “A lot of changing managers.” A new service manager was in post. However, there was a lack of evidence of an effective induction, handover and ongoing support in their role. Staff told us, “Radis are a really poor company, managers do not get any support,” “We were without a manager for a few months. I do not think we were massively supported by higher management that time, the office was empty most days” and “It seems as though there is a lot of higher management but no one around.” A staff member had been highlighted by staff, relatives and people as taking on many managerial responsibilities in the absence of managers. A person said, “[Name of staff member] has really stepped up in supporting staff and is very good.” A relative said, “[Name of staff member] has been brilliant and is holding the place together at times.” The organisational structure flow chart did not include the registered manager. The senior team structure had not been reviewed or changed to ensure the resources and roles were in place to make the improvements required at the service and to ensure the staffing structure was effective.

Systems to ensure staff could contribute ideas and suggestions for the development of the service had not been operated. Staff had not had regular meetings to share learning, raise concerns or make suggestions. A staff member said, “Never had one [team meeting].” Another staff member said, “We haven’t had a team meeting for a long time.” The new manager said this would be addressed. Staff had not contributed to a quality survey in April 2026. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had not completed a survey or been asked for feedback.

Staff spoke positively about the manager recently new in post. A staff member said, “[Name of manager] walked around Radis Community Care (Waverley Court) and introduced themselves to everyone, not something we’ve had before. [Name of manager] listens and handles things quickly, it’s been a nice change.” Staff told us communication was improving. A staff member said, “We are very much in the loop now.” Staff received training in handling information and confidentiality.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The service had not established effective partnership working. It had been difficult for professionals to access managers to communicate and share information about people’s care needs. A health and social care professional said they had experienced, “Repeated difficulties contacting management.” There was now a manager in post, we observed a range of professionals and relatives access the office to communicate with the manager. The manager was keen to develop this area and had scheduled meetings to ensure they were known to people and relatives.

The service was supporting people to be part of their local community if this was part of their care plan arrangements. A relative told us how the service had supported their family member to be part of a family’s birthday celebrations.
 

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Operational systems had not been used to ensure learning and improvement was shared. For example, learning from incident, accident and safeguarding events through meetings, communications and supervisions. Staff had completed training in their roles. However, additional learning and sharing of good practice had not occurred. People that used the service, their families, staff and relevant others had not been involved in contributing ideas for development and improvement. Innovation of the service and people’s experience had not been focused upon.