Radiant Life provides care and support to people living in a supported living setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements, the accommodation was provided by a separate landlord. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing personal care to 26 people. The service also provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. The service had made improvements since the last inspection and is no longer in breach of regulations. The systems for safeguarding people from abuse were now operated effectively. The provider had effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. We carried out a site visit to the registered office and one of the supported living sites on 4 February 2025 as part of the assessment. This assessment was carried out by an assessor. Assessment activity started on 4 February 2025 and ended 11 February 2025. We looked at 15 quality statements as part of this assessment. We spoke with 5 staff, 3 people who use the service and 3 relatives. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-2814558757.
Radiant Life Care improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement overall, exiting Special Measures, with Good ratings in effective, caring and responsive domains following remediation of multiple prior breaches. However, continued breaches of Regulation 13 (safeguarding) and Regulation 17 (good governance) were identified, with conditions imposed on registration due to ineffective safeguarding systems and failure to notify CQC of safeguarding allegations.
Concerns (5)
criticalSafeguarding: “Although a safeguarding log was in place, it did not always contain the information related to the investigation completed by the local authority.”
criticalIncident learning: “Risks had not been analysed to identify trends so action could be taken to help reduce the risk of recurrence. There were no examples of reflective practice.”
criticalGovernance: “Quality assurance processes had failed to ensure that improvements made had been sustained. The issues identified were similar to issues identified at the previous inspection in 2021.”
criticalGovernance: “Not all notifications of safeguarding allegations were submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as is required.”
moderateRecord keeping: “Safeguarding records were not kept accurately. Record keeping plays a fundamental part in providing high quality care.”
Strengths
· Medicines were being managed safely with completed MARs, staff competency assessments and regular audits.
· Risk assessments were reviewed and updated to reflect changes in people's needs, with clear guidance for staff.
· Robust recruitment processes including DBS checks, right to work checks and structured inductions.
· New electronic call monitoring system introduced to minimise late and missed calls.
· Care plans were person-centred, signed by people, and included cultural, religious and communication needs.
Quality-Statement breakdown (21)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; Learning lessons when things go wrongRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink; Supporting people to live healthier lives and access healthcareGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles; understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements; Continuous learningRequires improvement
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candour; Working in partnership with othersGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringGood
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
Radiant Life Care was rated Inadequate overall following a September 2021 inspection, with breaches of six regulations including safeguarding, safe care and treatment, staffing, consent, person-centred care and good governance. The service was placed in special measures due to widespread failures in medicines management, risk assessment, missed and late visits, and ineffective governance and oversight systems.
Concerns (10)
criticalSafeguarding: “Two people had made allegations that care staff had stolen from them. The registered manager had not made referrals to the police.”
criticalMedication management: “MARs lacked critical information such as people's address, names, date of births, dates were incomplete and no information about allergies was recorded.”
criticalMissed or late visits: “one 30-minute morning call was scheduled for 06:00am but carers did not arrive until 08.23am. The call then only lasted for nine minutes.”
criticalGovernance: “The provider did not always identify when incidents met the notification threshold. We are concerned they did not understand their regulatory responsibilities.”
criticalIncident learning: “staff and managers were not recording, analysing and reviewing all safeguarding incidents to prevent reoccurrence.”
criticalStaffing levels: “a person required two care workers to deliver their care safely, but records showed the staff did not attend at the same time.”
moderateCare planning: “Care plans did not always promote personalised care and lacked information for staff to meet people's needs safely.”
moderateRecord keeping: “The registered manager did not have oversight of audits, such as care plans and risk assessments.”
moderateConsent / capacity: “Two people whose care plan recorded they had dementia did not have a mental capacity assessment in relation to the receipt of care and support.”
moderatePerson-centred care: “Care plans were not always personalised to include people's preferences, wishes, needs in key areas such as communication, life history, mental capacity, mobility.”
Strengths
· Staff followed infection control procedures and wore appropriate PPE; people felt protected from risks such as Covid-19.
· Recruitment practices were robust, including references, DBS checks and identity verification.
· Staff received regular supervision, spot checks and attended staff meetings; the registered manager was described as approachable.
· People and relatives reported staff were kind, caring, and respectful of privacy and dignity.
· Staff received training in safeguarding, moving and handling, medication management and infection control.
Quality-Statement breakdown (18)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseInadequate
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementInadequate
safe: Staffing and recruitmentInadequate
safe: Using medicines safelyInadequate
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawRequires improvement
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietRequires improvement
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance
Radiant Life Care, a domiciliary care provider supporting 40 people, was rated Requires Improvement overall at its first CQC inspection in October 2016, with five regulatory breaches identified spanning risk assessment, person-centred care planning, consent, governance and record-keeping. Caring was the sole Good domain, reflecting positive staff attitudes, though systemic failures in visit monitoring, incomplete care plans and failure to notify CQC of safeguarding incidents presented significant safety and governance concerns.
Concerns (8)
criticalCare planning: “The remaining four care plans we viewed were for people whose support was funded by the local authority...were incomplete, did not contain appropriate information about people's preferences.”
criticalRecord keeping: “Records relating to the care of people were not fit for purpose, they were not always completing records accurately. Regulation 17(1)(2)(c).”
criticalConsent / capacity: “Three of the care plans we viewed did not make reference to the person's capacity to understand and make decisions about their support at all.”
criticalGovernance: “The registered manager did not inform the Care Quality Commission of significant events that affect people's safety and wellbeing.”
criticalIncident learning: “The registered manager did not undertake any analysis of accidents or incidents to determine trends, or implement changes to improve the service.”
criticalMissed or late visits: “One person was scheduled to have a staff member visit for 45 minutes from 8am. Their call log for 1 September 2016 showed that the staff member visited at 5:32pm for less than one minute.”
criticalSafeguarding: “We saw records of three safeguarding adults investigations involving the service, about which we had not been notified as required by law.”
moderateSupervision / appraisal: “Some staff were not having regular supervision and this could impact on the quality of care and support people received.”
Strengths
· Staff treated people in a caring way, showing dignity and respect and promoting independence.
· Sufficient staffing levels with consistent staff allocated to the same people.
· Medicines were managed safely with trained and competent staff and MAR charts in place.
· Staff had good safeguarding knowledge and the service had appropriate safeguarding policies.
· Staff received structured induction and a varied training programme including Care Certificate.
Quality-Statement breakdown (18)
safe: Risk assessment and risk managementRequires improvement
safe: Staffing levels and consistencyGood
safe: SafeguardingGood
safe: Medicines managementGood
safe: Staff recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Visit monitoring and call loggingRequires improvement
effective: Mental Capacity Act and consentRequires improvement
Radiant Life Care improved from Requires Improvement to Good across all five key questions following a focused action plan that addressed care planning, risk assessments, mental capacity recording, and statutory notifications. The service demonstrated safe, person-centred care with strong staff consistency, effective governance, and responsive leadership.
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff and built strong, consistent relationships with a regular group of carers
· Robust recruitment and DBS checks in place before staff commenced work
· Electronic visit monitoring system (log in/out via smartphone app) effectively prevented missed visits
· Staff received regular training including safeguarding, medicines management, moving and handling, infection control, and dementia awareness
· Regular one-to-one supervisions and forthcoming annual appraisals supported staff development
Requires improvement
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careRequires improvement
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityRequires improvement
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesRequires improvement
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsRequires improvement
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles; understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsInadequate
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringRequires improvement
effective: Staff supervision and appraisal
Requires improvement
effective: Nutrition and hydration supportGood
effective: Healthcare access and professional liaisonGood
caring: Dignity, respect and privacyGood
caring: Involvement in care planning and independenceGood
responsive: Person-centred care planningRequires improvement