- Homecare service
Radis Community Care (Woodland Court)
Assessment report published 5 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of assessment were from 3 March 2026 to 2 April 2026. We completed this assessment remotely, with one visit to the office on 26 March 2026. The assessment was planned due to the age of the rating.
Radis Community Care (Woodland Court) offers accommodation in the form of individual flats or apartments for people requiring support to live independently. The provider is registered to provide personal care for people living at Woodland Court. In this type of facility, the Care Quality Commission only regulates and inspects the provision of personal care and not the accommodation or facilities provided. At the time of assessment there were 28 people in receipt of personal care, living at the service.
The provider demonstrated a positive and supportive environment with evidence of responsive care delivery and effective management oversight in many areas. Relatives consistently reported being kept informed about their loved ones’ wellbeing, with regular updates and good communication from staff and management. This helped to provide reassurance, particularly where people’s needs were changing, and showed the service maintained appropriate involvement with families and representatives.
There was strong evidence care was responsive to individual needs, with care plans and support adjusted where required. People’s independence was promoted, and staff encouraged engagement in daily living and activities, helping to maintain wellbeing and quality of life. Some people also described opportunities to take part in activities and social interactions, although uptake varied depending on individual preferences.
Management was described as visible and approachable, with staff, relatives and people feeling able to raise concerns and receive timely responses. Issues raised were typically addressed appropriately, and there were examples of concerns being resolved following feedback. This indicated a willingness within the service to listen and act on concerns when they arose.
However, the assessment also highlighted some areas for improvement. Staff training required more robust documentation to demonstrate ongoing compliance, and some medication administration processes needed to be improved. We found partnership working with district nurses was not clearly evidenced reducing assurance of consistent care delivery. Governance systems required strengthening to ensure lessons could be learnt through clear trend analysis.
Overall, while the service was generally well regarded and demonstrated strengths in communication, responsiveness, and promoting independence, some inconsistencies in record keeping and governance processes required improvement, and in doing so would support a more consistently positive experience for all people using the service.
People's experience of this service
Feedback from people and relatives was largely positive, with many describing the service as friendly, caring and supportive. A strong theme was the kindness of staff and the relationships formed, with one person stating, “the staff are very kind and caring and will always have time to chat,” and another saying, “they encourage me to be independent, but will assist me when I need it.” People felt staff knew them well, with consistent carers helping build familiarity and trust. Relatives also highlighted reassurance through regular updates, for example, “I am kept updated… they will either call me or another relative.”
Management was widely described as approachable and responsive, with people saying they felt comfortable raising concerns and that issues were dealt with promptly: “I would go to the manager… she dealt with the issue straight away.” Communication with families was generally good, with updates provided and involvement in care decisions.
There was positive feedback about support with daily living, including personal care, medication, and encouragement to take part in social activities.
While most feedback was positive, some shortfalls were raised. These included occasional missed tasks, and inconsistencies in some staff practice, particularly among less experienced staff.
Overall, people expressed high levels of satisfaction, with care described as respectful, supportive, and generally well managed.