You are here

Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 June 2019

About the service: Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own apartments within an extra care housing scheme known as Meadow Court. It provides a service to older people. At the time of the inspection there were 23 people receiving personal care.

Not everyone using Radis Community Care (Meadow Court) received a regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks relation to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were happy with the level of care and support they received from staff. They told us they were well cared for and felt safe while receiving care. The registered manager as well as the staff team were aware of their responsibility to report any actual or suspected abuse.

Although people and their relatives felt listened to we found improvement was needed regarding to ensure the registered manager was aware of any concerns or complaints raised about the service in order for these to always be investigated.

Risks associated to people’s care were assessed to provide guidance to staff on how to reduce these and enable staff to meet individual care needs. People received their medicines as prescribed although some improvement was needed to ensure instruction regarding changes to people’s medicines were effectively communicated. Care plans were detailed, and person centred to match the individual needs of people using the service. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs in a consistent way and provide a reliable service. provided by staff who people were familiar with. Recruitment procedures were in place to assist in the safe appointment of staff who were suitable to work with people who used the service.

Newly appointed staff undertook shadowing experiences with more experienced members of the team to introduce them to people and their role. Staff received induction training and ongoing training to meet the needs of the people they supported. Staff had knowledge about infection control procedures and used protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection.

People were supported as needed with meals and drinks as well as with their medicines. The registered provider had worked alongside healthcare professionals. Staff had contacted healthcare professionals as well as emergency services as needed to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were treated with respect and dignity and could make choices about their care and support. Staff ensured people consented to care being given.

People and their relatives told us any concerns or complaints made would be listened to. Staff felt well supported by the management. The provider had systems in place to monitor the service.

Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection since a change in provider registration with the Care Quality Commission [CQC].

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date of the provider’s registration with the Care Quality Commission.

We found the service met the requirements for ‘Good’. One area was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. The overall raring of the service was ‘Good’.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we received about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas



Updated 11 June 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 11 June 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 11 June 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2019

The service was not always responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.



Updated 11 June 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.