Ranmore House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were personalised and showed people, and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care. Where healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care, certain care plans were written in conjunction with the relevant professional. For example, where a professional had instructed staff to encourage a person to undertake certain tasks, we saw during our site visits that this was taking place.

People were empowered to live independent lives and were at the centre of decision-making. One relative told us, “Every year they go on a holiday, but they also go on day trips all the time.” Another relative commented, “When we see [them, person] always looks well cared for and is always happy to return back to Ranmore.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with professionals who were involved in people’s care. The provider understood their local community and how to support people to be involved. Staff encouraged people to engage with their local community but respected their wishes where they chose not to. One relative described to us how people were supported to go out regularly which included hydrotherapy, the local pub and day clubs. There was a consistent staff team, and the service did not use temporary staff. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and there was continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in various formats, and the provider took steps to ensure people had access to the aids they used. We observed staff communicating with people using sign language and using pictures of meals on offer. The provider understood their responsibilities in relation to the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard sets out how providers and commissioners of NHS and publicly funded adult social care services should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider sought feedback from relatives and people who used the service. The majority of people living in the service were unable to communicate verbally. However, we saw staff involving people using various methods and people responded to make informed decisions. One relative explained how staff listened to suggestions in relation to the environment and had made changes which all people living at the service were able to enjoy.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place, but they told us they had not received any complaints recently. They told us they understood their responsibility to record, investigate and share outcomes of complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access services when they needed it. The premises and equipment were adapted to be suitable for people’s needs and the provider worked well with partners to provide further support where necessary and to made adjustments to the environment. People were provided with support to ensure they had equal access to care and treatment. The provider and the wider staff team understood their responsibilities to be aware of discrimination and inequalities which could have an impact on people accessing care and support.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Relatives told us they felt listened to and that people lived in an environment that treated them in line with their rights to live free from inequality. The provider understood their legal equality and human rights responsibilities, including prevention of discrimination, understanding protected characteristics and understanding how reasonable adjustments support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had end of life care plans in place which detailed their preferences and how they would like to be supported. These included involvement from relatives and healthcare professionals who had been involved in the decisions. There was nobody receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment.