Riann Care

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of the regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 61 (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 which was understood and supported by all staff. All staff and leaders we spoke with were clearly passionate about their roles and supporting people. Staff comments included, “It’s important for us to spend time with our clients, we treat them as if they are part of our family” and “They lead by example, doing calls and working alongside staff.”

Leaders did not always have the skills and knowledge to lead effectively, and we could not be assured they always did so with openness and honesty. During our inspection we identified breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance, which leaders had not identified.

Some information submitted to us by the provider, such as staff and service user survey outcomes, contained information about another provider’s services. An audit document referred to a high use of agency staff, which the nominated individual confirmed was inaccurate as they did not use agency staff, and we received another provider’s service user guide and training policy. A service improvement plan also recorded required actions that were not relevant to the service type, for example noting observations were required for kitchen and domestic staff. This meant we could not be assured of the accuracy of the information.

However, we received consistently positive feedback about leaders’ compassion. Comments from people and relatives included, “They do so much for us” and “I can’t really speak highly enough of them”. Staff told us, “[Nominated individual] is caring, understanding, empathetic and goes above and beyond for any of us”.

People and relatives told us they felt able to speak up if they had concerns. Comments included, “If I was unhappy about my safety I could speak with the manager” and “There’s always that discussion [about any concerns] and agreement on the way forward”. Staff also told us they felt able to speak up.

The provider worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them., Staff shared examples of how the provider supported them to balance work with caring responsibilities and being highly flexible accommodating staff’s available working hours. A staff member told us, “I think we’re all treated equal.”

The provider did not operate robust systems and processes to effectively assess, monitor and improve quality and safety. Although regular audits were completed, for example in areas such as medicines and care notes, they were not always effective at identifying and acting on shortfalls. This exposed people to the risk of harm as detailed in the safe section of this report. The provider had an ‘oversight monitoring tracker’ that included areas such as safeguarding, accidents and incidents and complaints. The provider told us this was what they used to identify potential themes or review learning. However, we found not all incidents and accidents were recorded on the tracker, and some entries contained no detail other than a reference number, date and who raised the concern. This meant it could not be used to effectively monitor for themes, review learning or identify shortfalls and exposed people to the risk of further incidents of harm. For example, we saw an incident form dated 30 September 2025 where staff accidentally caught a person’s fingers in their bath seat when supporting them. This was not on the oversight tracker, and no action was taken to prevent further incidents until this was raised by the inspection team.

We received a service improvement plan which had 57 actions dated 20 April 2025. However, the columns for recording required completion time, progress updates and date of completion were all blank, and we continued to find shortfalls in these areas.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. The provider engaged with professional networks and was involved with the community, including charity fundraising. The provider also supported relatives to access training to support their understanding of their loved ones needs, for example in dementia.

The provider did not consistently promote learning, innovation and improvement across the service. Although the provider demonstrated a desire to make improvements and acted promptly in response to some feedback shared, processes and systems had not ensured areas for improvement were identified independently.