We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rons Place on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rons Place, you can give feedback on this service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At the last inspection, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The provider had displayed the rating from the previous inspection clearly on the premises. The provider did not have a website.
The home had a registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and relatives were complimentary and satisfied with the quality of care they received. People received care that enabled them to live their lives as they wanted, and were able to make choices about maintaining their independence. People were encouraged to make their own decisions about the care they received and care was given in line with their expressed wishes. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.
Care plans contained accurate and detailed relevant information for staff to help them provide the individual care people required. People and relatives were involved in making care decisions and reviewing their care to ensure it continued to meet their needs.
For people assessed as being at risk, care records included information for staff so risks to people’s health and welfare were minimised. Whilst this information was not always up to date, staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and abilities which meant they provided safe and effective care. Staff received training to meet people’s individual needs, and used their skills, knowledge and experience to support people effectively and develop trusting relationships.
Medicines were stored and administered safely and as prescribed.
People’s care and support was provided by a caring staff team and there were enough trained and experienced staff to be responsive to meet their needs. People told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives agreed. Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse. Staff and the manager understood what actions they needed to take if they had any concerns for people's wellbeing or safety.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received a choice of meals and drinks that met their individual dietary requirements at times they wanted them.
People and relatives knew how to voice their complaints and felt confident to do so.
Checks and audits were not always completed, and the provider did not always maintain accurate and up to date records, of staff training for example. This meant the provider did not always have the information they needed to help the care and support people received improve.
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views of the service through regular meetings, questionnaires and conversations.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on the 29 September 2015 and was unannounced.
Ron’s Place provides care and accommodation for up to four people with a diagnosis of a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our visit there were four people living in the home.
There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection, who was also the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The home had a happy and relaxed atmosphere and staff told us how much they enjoyed supporting people who lived at the home. People were treated with kindness and compassion and there was a lot of positive engagement with people. Staff constantly checked to see if people needed anything and there was clear evidence of caring relationships between staff and the people they supported.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs both inside the home and outside in the community. Staff had a good and in-depth understanding of people’s needs and abilities and the level of support they required to keep them safe. Staff understood their responsibility to report concerns they had about people’s wellbeing and were observant for non-verbal signs that may indicate a person was unhappy.
People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who were trained and competent to do so. People’s medicines were stored safely and securely.
Staff received training and support to ensure they could safely and effectively meet the individual needs of the people living in the home. Staff told us the training they received gave them the skills to support people, especially those who could sometimes display behaviours that could cause concern to them and others.
The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The provider had made applications to the local authority in accordance with the DoLS and at the time of our visit, no DoLS had been approved for people living at the home.
Staff understood people’s communication needs and gave visual prompts so people could make their own choices about their everyday activities. People were given opportunities to engage in activities that interested them inside and outside the home that helped promote their independence.
People were involved in planning their care and support needs. People were involved in regular reviews to ensure any changes in the support they required were identified.
The provider had systems to monitor the quality of service and people were provided opportunities to share their views about the service they received and where improvements were required.
People and staff told us they were able to raise concerns with the provider and were confident action would be taken to improve the service where required.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said: 'I feel safe here and the staff are all very good'.
The staff we spoke with knew and understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure people remained safe. Staff were able to tell us the different ways people might experience abuse that could place them at risk. Staff knew what their responsibilities were and what steps to take if they suspected abuse had taken place. We found staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had further safeguarding training planned.
The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were told that no DoLS applications had been made. Staff were able to describe when an application should be considered. We saw records that showed staff had received training in mental capacity awareness.
People's records were up to date and reflected people's current health needs. We saw risk assessments were in place and provided appropriate guidance for staff to follow. We also found care reviews had been completed when required.
Is the service effective?
People had an individual care plan which explained what their needs were. People told us they had been involved in their care assessment and their contributions were listened to. Risk assessments had been reviewed and identified current risks.
People had access to health care professionals which supported their health care needs. We found staff had received the appropriate training which enabled them to provide suitable care for people when needed.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by staff that provided care at people's preferred pace. Staff were patient, attentive and responded appropriately to people's requests. Staff promoted individual choice and supported people who wanted to remain as independent as possible. We found individual wishes were taken into account.
Is the service responsive?
People received help and support from other health professionals when required, such as doctors, dentists and community health support.
People were supported to participate in activities inside and outside of the home.
People told us they were able to raise any concerns they had, although all the people we spoke with were satisfied with the service they received.
Staff said they had a handover at the start of each shift to update them of any changes in people's needs since they were last on duty. Staff told us they found this useful because it identified how people were feeling and what people's current health situation was.
Is the service well led?
The service worked alongside other health care professionals and agencies to make sure people received the care they required.
The service had an effective system in place that assured them of the quality of service they provided. Rons Place completed regular checks of the service they provided and sought the views of people they supported. We found they had acted upon these views to improve the delivery of care.
People's care records and other records were accurate, available and complete.
We saw the home was clean and very well maintained with a high standard of decoration. People we spoke with told us they were happy with their home. One person told us, 'It is a nice home. Nice and tidy. I like my bedroom. It is big.'
People required varying levels of support and care from staff. Support plans provided staff with information about people's needs and abilities and how they were to deliver the care and support people required. Plans were clear about what people could do independently and what they needed support with.
There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
Staff told us they received regular training and support to obtain further qualifications. We saw staff had an annual appraisal which covered their achievements in the previous year and a personal development plan for the coming twelve months.
A relative of a person who lived at the home told us, 'They are performing little miracles. X was welcomed as soon as he walked through the door during his assessment and he didn't want to see anywhere else.' Staff said, 'It's lovely working here and I can do everything that needs to be done.'
Staff told us that there was excellent staff cover and they planned a wide range of activities for people. A trip to see Dancing on Ice had been planned for the near future.
People who lived at the home interacted positively with staff and appeared very comfortable and relaxed. They were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.
A relative told us that staff, 'Know exactly what X needs.'