The Radcliffe

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We observed that staff were kind and caring towards people. People and their relatives told us the staff treated them with kindness. People felt respected and treated as individuals. However, improvements were required to ensure care was planned to meet people’s needs in a person-centred way. Improvements were required to ensure that care planning and risk assessment reflected how people could be supported to be independent.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us staff were caring and kind. People's comments included, "The staff are very good and have a good laugh but they are always busy" and "Each and every one of the carers are lovely. They cheer me up." Relatives told us, "They have some lovely carers" and "The staff are really good. They are patient and really caring. They sit and talk to [person]."

Staff displayed a good knowledge of good caring values and of treating people with dignity and respect. Staff did, however, have very little time to speak to people due to staffing levels.

The local authority had shared concerns identified after their monitoring visits. These concerns included medication, staffing, infection prevention and control. In addition they shared concerns about staff training and staff approach to people not always being kind. These issues had been shared with the registered manager. During our assessment, we did not find concerns in relation to staff approach to people. People told us staff were kind and caring. This was confirmed by our observations.

Staff were kind and respectful when speaking to people. Staff knew people names and for some people what was important to them.

People told us they could make choices about their care. Comments included, "I can choose what I want to do during the day."

Staff knew people's names and for some people, what was important to them. However, this was not the case for all people and all staff. Staff did not know people's life stories to enable them to interact in a positive way. This is particularly important for people living with dementia who may not always be able to recall these details independently.

We saw that staff were generally pleasant with people. However, interactions were generic and not person centred with most people. We did observe some interaction that was specific to peoples lives, needs and interests. More work was required to ensure staff consistently knew people as individuals.

Thee processes in place did not always ensure people's care needs were planned in a person centred way. People felt treated and respected as individuals. However, care was not always assessed and planned to meet their preferences. We found examples of people's confidential information being left unattended in communal areas. After our inspection, the provider showed us the action they were taking to ensure people's needs were assessed, planned and reviewed as appropriate.

People told us they could made choices about their care. Comments included, "I can make my own choices through the day."

We received positive feedback regarding activities that were organised within the home. Staff told us that they were generally too busy, particularly in the morning, to engage in activities. People had choices regarding the food they ate and where they sat. However, this did not extend into choices about music being listened to and TV programs being watched.

We observed that people chose where they sat and food they ate at lunchtime. People were given alternative choices if they did not wish to have what was on the menu. One person had moved bedrooms after requesting this.

During this assessment, we found that the lack of appropriate risk assessment and care planning did not give us assurances that all people were as independent as they could be. Although we found examples of people being independent in managing certain areas of their care, such as diabetes care and self applying creams, we also found other examples where care was being delivered but there was no indication people's specific health conditions. For example, there was no evidence the specific needs of people living with dementia had been considered and adaptations made. The registered manager told us they were planning to offer staff additional dementia training.

People told us staff were kind and responded well to their requests for support.

We found concerns with the numbers of staff and their deployment which impacted on people’s safety. For example, in managing the risk of falls, or with receiving person centred care. Action was taken after we raised our concerns and we found improvements in these areas on our second inspection visit.

Staff were not always present to respond to people immediate needs. There were long periods of time where no staff were present in communal areas to provide people with support. We also saw that call bells were taking a considerably long time to answer. This meant people's needs were not always met at the time they required support.

During this assessment, most feedback from staff indicated they felt supported. However, we found staff had not always been provided with the training to complete their jobs safely. Action was taken during or shortly after our inspection visits. Staff had been offered a recent supervision by the registered manager.

During this assessment, most feedback from staff indicated they felt supported. However, we found staff had not always been provided with the training to complete their jobs safely. Action was taken during or shortly after our inspection visits. Staff had been offered a recent supervision by the registered manager.