Rons Place

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 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 told us they, and those important to them, were actively involved in decisions about their care and support, including regular reviews of their care plans. This helped to ensure care remained responsive to their changing needs, preferences and aspirations.

Care plans demonstrated a strong person-centred approach, with the individual placed at the heart of care planning and decision-making. Records reflected people's unique personalities, preferences and choices, providing clear guidance for staff on how care should be delivered in a way that respected each person's wishes and promoted their independence.

In addition to information about health and personal care needs, care plans contained detailed guidance about how people's medical conditions and prescribed medicines affected them as individuals. Records also included information about social, emotional and wellbeing needs, ensuring support extended beyond physical care. Communication needs were clearly documented, enabling staff to adapt their approach and support people to express their views, preferences and choices effectively.

Our observations of staff interactions with people reflected the person-centred ethos described within care records. Staff adapted their communication style, approach and level of support to meet the needs of each individual, recognising that every person required a different approach. This personalised support helped people feel valued, listened to and respected, while promoting positive outcomes and maintaining their dignity, choice and control.

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.

The provider maintained positive and effective relationships with community healthcare professionals, local authority teams and commissioning bodies. These collaborative partnerships helped to ensure people received coordinated, responsive and high-quality support that reflected their individual needs and circumstances.

Staff actively participated in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, contributing relevant information about people's needs, progress and outcomes. This collaborative approach helped ensure care remained appropriate and responsive to changing circumstances. MDT involvement was particularly important during transitions between services, such as following an unplanned hospital admission or in preparation for a planned transfer, helping to promote continuity of care and positive outcomes for people.

The service worked closely with a range of specialist professionals, including physiotherapists, mental health teams, falls prevention services, tissue viability nurses and other healthcare practitioners as required. Staff demonstrated that they valued professional input and acted on advice and recommendations to support people's health, safety and wellbeing.

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

The service had a clear data protection policy. This ensured people’s data and personal information was stored securely and shared only with those that consent had been provided for, or those who had legal authority to view.

Staff we spoke to understand the importance of data privacy and working procedures ensured this was protected. Information was shared with people in a variety of formats to best suit their needs – this included verbally where this was most appropriate. Emails were also sent to keep people and their relatives up to date.

Information was accessible and available in formats that people could understand, supporting people to be informed and empowered. Staff understood how to present information in a way that met each person’s communication needs. They adapted their approach using appropriate methods and tools to enhance understanding and involvement.

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 were given regular opportunities to share their views, experiences and feedback about the service. This included meetings involving both people using the service and staff, where individuals could express their opinions, discuss any concerns and make suggestions about how the service could be improved.

The service actively encouraged people to be involved in shaping their care and support and to contribute to the ongoing development of the service. People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and that their views were valued by both staff and managers. They said they felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident that any issues would be taken seriously and addressed promptly.

A complaints policy was in place, providing clear guidance on how concerns would be managed, investigated and responded to. Complaints, actions and outcomes were recorded through a digital monitoring system, which helped ensure responses were completed within expected timescales and in accordance with the provider's procedures. The system also provided effective oversight for senior staff, enabling them to monitor progress, review outcomes and identify opportunities for learning and service improvement.

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

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet people's individual needs, ensuring they were able to access care, support and healthcare services in a way that was appropriate, inclusive and effective. Staff and managers demonstrated a good understanding of advocacy services and were able to explain how people could access independent support if they wished to have their views represented, their rights protected or assistance in making decisions.

The provider was responsive to people's changing needs and took practical steps to ensure people could continue to receive the care and support they required in the least restrictive way possible. For example, in response to one person's changing mobility needs, a ground-floor toilet had been converted into a wet room, and their main bedroom had been relocated to the ground floor after they were no longer able to safely access first-floor facilities. These adaptations helped the person remain safe, comfortable and independent within their home.

People benefited from flexible access to healthcare services. Many healthcare professionals visited people within the home, reducing the need for unnecessary travel and ensuring timely access to support. Where external appointments were required, staff supported people to attend and access the treatment, assessments and specialist input they needed.

All people were able to access shared areas of the home, including communal lounges and the garden, enabling them to participate in social activities and spend time in environments of their choosing. The provider had considered accessibility and inclusion when supporting people to use these spaces safely and comfortably.

Emergency planning arrangements also reflected people's individual needs. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) took account of people's mobility, communication and support requirements, providing staff with clear guidance on how to support each person safely in the event of an evacuation. This helped to ensure people were protected and could be supported effectively during an emergency.

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.

Staff received equality, diversity and inclusion training to help them understand, recognise and prevent discrimination and unequal treatment. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the barriers people may experience and how these could be overcome through personalised approaches to care and support. For example, staff understood the importance of not only recording people's communication needs but also adapting their communication styles and methods to suit each individual. During our inspection, we observed staff tailoring their interactions and responses to meet people's specific needs, helping to promote inclusion, choice and meaningful engagement.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place, and senior staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and the protected characteristics it outlines. This helped to ensure people were treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and were supported in a way that recognised and valued their individuality.

The service actively supported people to maintain their cultural, spiritual and religious preferences. For example, one person had previously enjoyed attending church but, due to changes in their health, was no longer able to do so easily. In response, staff supported the person to access church services through television and radio broadcasts and assisted them in obtaining a collection of gospel music that reflected their personal faith and spiritual interests. This enabled the person to continue practising and enjoying activities that were important to them.

The provider also demonstrated a commitment to celebrating diversity and promoting inclusion through everyday practices. Menus were regularly reviewed and developed to incorporate a variety of foods and dishes from different cultural backgrounds. The staff team was diverse, and team members were encouraged to contribute ideas and share aspects of their own cultural heritage, helping to create an inclusive environment that recognised and celebrated diversity.

In addition, the service acknowledged and supported the observance of cultural and religious celebrations throughout the year. These arrangements helped to foster a sense of belonging, respect and community, ensuring people were supported in a way that reflected their backgrounds, identities, beliefs and personal preferences. This inclusive approach promoted equality, valued diversity and helped people feel respected, understood and empowered.

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 and their relatives were given opportunities to discuss their future wishes and preferences, including those relating to end-of-life care. These conversations were approached sensitively, respectfully and in a person-centred manner, ensuring people felt supported and able to share their views at a pace that was comfortable for them. Staff understood that some people may not wish, or may be unable, to engage in discussions about future care planning, and they respected these choices.

Care plans reflected consideration of people's future needs and aspirations, recognising that an individual's circumstances may improve or change over time, or that they may require increasing support as their health needs evolve. People were involved in planning for the future wherever possible, with their wishes, preferences and desired outcomes guiding decision-making and support arrangements.

End-of-life preferences formed part of ongoing care planning and were considered during regular care plan reviews to ensure information remained current and accurately reflected people's wishes. Where individuals chose not to discuss end-of-life care, this decision was respected, clearly documented and revisited sensitively as part of future reviews when appropriate.

Relatives and other relevant representatives were involved in discussions and decision-making processes where people had consented to this, or where individuals had the legal authority to act on a person's behalf. This collaborative approach helped to ensure future care planning reflected people's values, preferences and best interests, while promoting dignity, choice and person-centred support throughout their care journey.