Ranmore House

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Relatives told us people were treated with kindness, and they were happy with the support provided by staff. One relative told us, “Staff here are lovely.” Another relative commented, “[Person] is very happy, comfortable and is well cared for.”

We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and compassionate way. We saw a staff group that knew people well and understood how to maintain their dignity throughout both visits, and feedback from relatives and healthcare professionals confirmed this.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Relatives told us people were treated as individuals and staff supported them to meet their needs and preferences. One relative told us, “We are very happy with the progress made [since person] has resided at Ranmore.”

Staff had considered people’s social, cultural and religious needs and people had goals which were periodically reviewed with relatives and healthcare professionals. Care records included information on people’s social, cultural and religious needs.

The provider generally promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Feedback from relatives in relation to people being empowered to be more independent was overwhelmingly positive. However, we identified an instance where a person could be supported further by the provider to improve their choice of activities. Whilst the impact was minimal because the person was still able to enjoy the activity with the support of relatives, the provider had not made the arrangements as part of their assessed provisions. The provider was receptive to feedback and acknowledged that this was an area they needed to review to ensure people were able to consistently access activities. The provider told us they would immediately start so the person would be attending the next session onwards with direct staff support.

People had control over their lives and were able to make decisions about their care. Staff involved people and their relatives throughout and feedback we received reflected this. Staff reviewed people’s goals to see if they had achieved these and looked at alternative ways to support people where they saw that people were declining to engage.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Relatives told us the provider listened to their views and wishes, and staff took the time to get to know people. Staff told us they had sufficient time to understand people’s needs before supporting them. This meant staff were able to respond to people’s needs and took steps to minimise any discomfort. For example, where people were reluctant to undertake activities, staff told us they prepared the environment by removing possible triggers and this had meant the person agreed to take part.

Throughout the assessment, we observed staff taking steps to address any concerns people had and to reassure people when they were distressed. We saw staff were able to comfort people and care records reflected people’s needs, views and wishes. Healthcare professionals were involved where this was appropriate to minimise distress.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us their workloads were manageable and they felt supported with their wellbeing. One member of staff told us, “They’re (the provider) very nice and supportive.” Staff told us they had the time to get to know people because they worked well together and did not have to rely on temporary staff, which meant they were able to consistently deliver person-centred care.