Rayners Residential Care Home

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 Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 felt their needs were met in a way they liked, and relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. Relatives reported staff kept them up to date about people's changing care needs and adapted their care accordingly. A staff member said, “I have worked in lots of homes, and this one is very person centred”.

We saw staff support people in a way that respected people’s needs and preferences. Staff understood what person-centred care meant and 1 described it as, “putting the individual at the heart of their own care and support”.

Staff were attentive to people’s individual needs and responded sensitively to their moods and preferences. For example, we saw when 1 person spoke firmly to a care worker who had entered their bedroom, the staff member responded calmly and respectfully. Later, we saw the person had been gently supported to get up and join the others in the lounge.

Innovative approaches, such as a ‘gratitude jar’, encouraged meaningful interactions and ensured care went beyond routine tasks. Staff were seen taking people's statements from a decorative container and these provided a prompt for light-hearted discussion. The jar was placed in a communal area and helped staff and people share personal life stories and joyful memories and ensured that daily conversations were taking place that were not task focused.

We saw some bedrooms were clearly personalised with items people had brought with them upon admission. This had extended to pots, plants and a birdbox for the garden.

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 ensured people’s care was co-ordinated and responsive. Staff worked proactively to ensure people had access to healthcare professionals when needed, and care was adapted based on professional guidance. All professionals we spoke with told us staff understood the health and care needs of the people they cared for.

Continuity of care was supported because people’s needs were regularly reviewed by the management team and staff. The provider had recently introduced a process of weekly information sharing opportunities. These meant staff could ensure people received consistent support from staff who knew their current needs.

The service also demonstrated a flexible approach to accommodating visiting services such as hairdressing and podiatry.

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

People’s communication needs were identified during the assessment process, and reviewed regularly, with information recorded about how staff could communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, glasses and hearing aids, for example. We saw staff communicating with people in ways which met their individual needs.

Relatives told us they were provided with information about their family member as needed and kept informed when they were unwell.

One professional told us, “I might not be providing information in a way that a person understands, though the staff knowing the person can explain and endorse it in a way that can help”.

The service published a monthly newsletter and issued it to people and their relatives to inform them of events at the home. A relative told us, “We love this, to know what is going on and it helps to plan my visits”. This was produced in accordance with the Accessible Information Standards (AIS).

However, people were not provided with menus on the table during mealtimes. We saw a chalk board displaying the menu. The provider indicated they were aware of the importance to ensure people were provided with up-to-date information that met their needs. The provider produced menus in a pictorial format following our visit.

The service had produced an accessible safeguarding policy for people, though their complaints procedure was not available in the similar format.

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.

People told us they were listened to and given the opportunity to share their views. A person told us, “I do feel able to raise any issues that I might have, with them”.

The management team told us they listened to people and ensured they were involved in planning their care and treatment. The service took all feedback seriously and ensured all concerns were investigated. The registered manager told us that small concerns are picked up during monthly care plan reviews with people and their relatives. This prevented them developing to complaints.

The provider demonstrated a clear “You said, we did” approach, showing how feedback led to tangible improvements. For example, 1 person wished to move to a bedroom with an ensuite as 1 became available and another asked if garden layout could be changed outside their room.

None of the people we spoke to had ever made a complaint though would be confident to do so if needed.

People and relatives all said they felt able to raise issues and share views with staff and the management team at any time. People, relatives and professionals described the staff and management team as attentive, responsive and approachable.

People and relatives were also able to provide feedback on the service through the annual feedback surveys. The most recent from December 2025 indicated 99.5% of respondents rated the overall quality of care as ‘excellent or very good’.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The management team understood how to access specialist health or social care support should this be required. We saw specialist services, such as hospice support and community nurses were contacted promptly and appropriately where there was a change in people’s needs. This was confirmed by health and social care professionals.

People’s sensory needs were met; we saw people were wearing working hearing aids and clean spectacles.

The building was purpose built. The corridors were wheelchair accessible with reasonable space for staff to accompany people around the home, if required. The several staircases around the home were secured for people's safety and there was a lift for people’s use.

The garden was accessible too and any adapted equipment people required was provided.

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.

The service was non-discriminatory and people and their relatives told us their individual needs were respected. The management team ensured the people were treated fairly and not discriminated against. Where required, reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes had been made. For example, the provider had researched specialist cutlery which was provided to enable people to maintain their independence during mealtimes.

Regular activities were arranged to enable different faiths to be celebrated within the home. The provider arranged a religious puppet show designed to support residents with cognitive impairment, helping them to engage in worship through hymns and Bible stories in an accessible, meaningful format.

Equality, diversity and inclusion training ensured staff understood how to deliver inclusive care. One staff member told us, “I do my best to uphold that everyone is different”.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People spent time with staff to make plans about their future care. Should end of life care be required, this was provided in line with the person’s wishes which were well detailed and documented within people’s care records.

Staff knew about people’s wishes in respect of the level of emergency care (resuscitation) or hospital admission should they become unwell and had confidence in initiating these conversations with people at admission to the service. Staff respected when people did not want to have these discussions at that time and recorded this in their care plan, stating a meeting, at a later date would be arranged.
Documentation was in place via electronic care plans and original copies were maintained within an office which staff always had access to.

The provision of end of life care was a strength of the service and was endorsed by people, relatives and professionals. Staff worked alongside senior, established staff when first providing end of life care to gain confidence, skills and understanding of what was expected. The service had set up a ‘healthy minds initiative’ to support staff emotional wellbeing.

A person told us their relative had received end of life care at the service which was very peaceful. They told us, “Everyone was so gentle, it was perfectly handled”. One relative told us how the service had supported them during a family bereavement, “They supported (my family member) and the wider family through a very difficult time and helped us to grieve together. We have received exceptional care”.

The service had provided effective pain management and reduced agitation for people at the end of their lives, in collaboration with nursing colleagues who expressed confidence in the service’s ability to support people at this time.

The provider was working collaboratively with a local hospice. So impressed were they with the level of palliative care provided by the service, that the hospice temporarily discharged a person from their care while the provider was able to meet the person’s needs..

A healthcare professional commented “end of life provision here is excellent. We couldn’t ask for better looking after people”.