Ransdale House

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

Safe

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The management team had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People felt safe and said they would speak with staff if they had any worries. Records of incidents and accidents were completed and the management team reviewed these to identify any themes or trends.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up if anything went wrong so it could be corrected accordingly. Staff had the necessary skills and training to manage incidents appropriately.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Care records confirmed people had access to a range of health and social care professionals when needed. Assessments undertaken by professionals were documented in individual files and, where needed, a care plan was put in place.

The service had effective and well-embedded systems and pathways in place to keep people safe while promoting their independence, rights, and choices. Staff understood the specific needs of people with learning disabilities and autistic people, and care pathways were designed to ensure support was personalised, consistent, and responsive.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were safe from harm and abuse. Safeguarding processes were in place to record concerns and notifications to the local authority and CQC were made appropriately.A person told us, “I feel safe at Ransdale House.” When we asked what made them feel safe, they told us “Staff.” A visiting professional told us, “They [people and staff] have just got that good rapport and respect for each other.”

The management team and staff worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff assessed risks to people and put plans in place to reduce the chances of these occurring. People were encouraged to take managed risk to maintain their independence, for example cooking, going out into the community, ironing and tidying their bedrooms. Assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure people’s safety.

Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) was well embedded across the home. Staff were trained in PBS principles and understood people’s individual triggers, early warning signs, and preferred de-escalation strategies.

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

Required testing and safety certificates were in place. Portable appliance testing on electrical equipment in people’s own bedrooms had not been undertaken. However, this was to be arranged and completed after our visit on 20 January 2026. The provider had plans in place to support people in an emergency situations that could disrupt the service.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider had systems in place to make sure people had access to sufficient staff to meet their needs. Staffing levels were determined by individual needs and the activities they wished to take part in. Throughout two site visits, we observed there were staff available to meet people's needs in a timely manner.

New staff were safely recruited into the service, with pre-employment checks carried out before they could start work.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had policies and training to support good practice. The home was clean and tidy throughout and we observed staff following best practice.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicine administration records and medicine care plans provided information to ensure people received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff responsible for administering medicines were trained to manage medicines safely.