Riann Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of the regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Incident reports sometimes lacked detail and did not always demonstrate actions were taken to reduce risk of recurrence. Incidents and accidents were not routinely analysed to identify potential themes and trends. This meant opportunities for learning were missed.

The provider did not always work well with people ensure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Although the provider completed pre-assessments before people began using the service, information such as relevant medical histories were not always used to develop care plans and risk assessments, and staff were not always aware of this information. This meant there was a risk not all needs would be identified and appropriately care planned for.

The provider sometimes worked well with people to enable them to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. However, safeguarding concerns were not always effectively investigated or followed up. Safeguarding outcomes were not always recorded and were sometimes recorded inaccurately. For example, in 1 instance the provider recorded a safeguarding outcome as unsubstantiated, when the local safeguarding authority had substantiated 8 of the concerns raised. This meant we could not be assured learning would be effectively implemented.

Staff we spoke with were able to provide examples of different types of abuse and could tell us who they would report concerns to. People we spoke with told us they felt safe with care staff and knew how to raise concerns if they felt unsafe.

The provider did not always work well with people to manage risks. Risk assessments lacked detail and did not always include guidance on how to mitigate risks to people.

Risk assessments were not always completed for known health conditions, such as epilepsy. When we raised this with the provider, they completed and shared generic risk assessments that described risks and control measures appropriate for an employee, not a person receiving care from the service. Following further feedback, we received an updated risk assessment containing inaccurate information that conflicted with the person’s medical history records and care plan. Risks associated with diabetes were not assessed, and there was no clear guidance for staff on signs and symptoms of high or low blood sugar or what actions to take. Risk assessments were not effectively reviewed or updated after choking incidents. A person’s records showed they had 3 choking incidents between December 2025 and February 2026, but a referral was not made to speech and language therapy until after our inspection. This exposed people to the risk of harm.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider completed environmental assessments of people’s homes, balancing individuals’ right to live as they chose with staff’s safety. For example, environmental risk assessments considered factors such as smoking, cleanliness and any risks posed by pets. Staff could describe the actions they took to maintain a safe environment when delivering people’s care, including checking equipment to ensure it remained safe to use.

The provider made sure there were enough staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

People received care from a consistent group of staff that knew them well, had the time to develop positive relationships and spend the agreed time delivering people’s care.New staff undertook a structured induction, including policy review, shadowing, and performance checks. Staff told us they received ongoing support through training, supervision, team meetings, spot checks, and competency assessments to maintain skills and knowledge. However, records showed staff did not always receive sufficient training relevant to their roles, including when a learning need was identified. For example, safeguarding.

Recruitment processes followed legal requirements. Required pre-employment checks were completed to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves and aprons, when providing personal care.Staff showed a good understanding of maintaining hygiene standards and reducing the risk of infection. Staff had yearly infection control competency checks to ensure they worked in line with the provider’s policies.

Medicines were not always managed safely. When medicines were prescribed ‘when required’ (PRN), PRN protocols lacked detail. For example, they did not always include key information such as when to offer the medicine, or what order to administer medicines when more than one PRN was available.

Topical cream records were not always completed when staff applied creams. In addition, medicines administration records (MARs) were not always accurate. We observed the registered manager change information such as dose and time of administration on the electronic care planning system on 2 occasions, without first checking the person’s prescription. This meant there was a risk of the wrong information being recorded and people not receiving their medicines as prescribed. The service did not request copies of people’s prescriptions which further meant they could not be assured the information was accurate.