Radis Community Care (Woodland 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were able to clearly describe the culture and values of the service, and these were consistently reflected in practice. The organisation’s values were embedded within staff meetings, recruitment processes, and day-to-day interactions, demonstrating a shared understanding across the team. Staff behaviour aligned with a person-centred approach, and there was evidence staff culture promoted respect, dignity, and teamwork throughout the service.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were described by staff as visible, approachable, and supportive. One relative commented, “[Registered Manager] is very good, I talk to them a lot. The manager is very approachable. At first I was nervous of talking to her but she said I can talk to her anytime.”

Staff reported feeling comfortable raising concerns and confident that these would be listened to and acted upon.

Leaders demonstrated awareness of challenges, including those relating to partnership working with district nurses, and had begun to take steps to address these. Staff felt supported in their roles and leadership promoted an open and accessible working environment.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff had received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of how to raise concerns appropriately. All staff spoken with reported feeling confident to speak up and raise issues without fear of negative consequences. There was an established culture where concerns were taken seriously, and staff believed appropriate action would be taken in response to any reports made.
 

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Recruitment processes were fair and equitable, supporting the development of a diverse workforce. Staff reported how they were treated fairly and with respect, and no concerns were raised regarding discrimination within the workplace. The service demonstrated an inclusive approach, with staff feeling valued regardless of their background or role.
 

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

Governance systems and processes were not always effective in identifying shortfalls or driving improvement. Audits, including those relating to safeguarding and medicines, did not consistently identify issues which were found during the assessment. For example, safeguarding audits lacked clear evidence of lessons learned, and audit scores did not always correspond with documented action plans or improvements. There was no formal audit system in place for accidents, incidents, and falls.

However, some monitoring systems were in use to track care delivery, such as reviewing call times and daily records.

Overall, governance arrangements were not sufficiently robust to provide assurance that risks were being consistently identified, monitored, and addressed.
 

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 demonstrated some effective partnership working with community groups and showed a commitment to engaging with local communities, including groups that may otherwise be overlooked.

There was evidence of meaningful activities and positive engagement with people using the service through these links.

However, systems to support partnership working were not fully effective. In particular, there was no consistent process for recording visits from district nurses, which limited oversight and governance of this aspect of care. Input from external healthcare professionals was not always clearly documented or incorporated into care planning. These gaps meant partnership working was not consistently monitored, and leaders had not fully addressed these issues prior to the assessment.
 

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.

While some areas for learning and improvement had been identified, these had not been fully embedded into practice. Issues such as gaps in partnership working and record keeping had been recognised; however, actions taken had not yet resulted in sustained or consistent improvement.

Audit and oversight systems were not always effective in identifying areas for development or driving continuous improvement. As a result, learning was not consistently captured, shared, or used to inform practice across the service. Further work was required to strengthen systems for identifying, embedding, and evidencing learning and innovation within the service.