Rons Place

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service promoted a proactive and positive culture of safety, underpinned by openness, transparency and a commitment to continuous learning. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were supported to report, investigate and learn from safety-related incidents. The service demonstrated a reflective approach to practice, ensuring lessons learned were used to strengthen processes and improve outcomes for people. For example, following a medicines error, a member of staff initially found it challenging to complete a reflective account and identify the root cause of the incident. With support and guidance from management, the staff member was able to engage in a more meaningful reflection and recognise that, while factors such as rushing and distractions may have contributed, the primary cause was a failure to follow established medicines administration procedures, maintain appropriate observation, and complete the necessary checks and audits. As a result, a comprehensive improvement plan was implemented, including enhanced supervision during medicines administration, ongoing evaluation of medicines management knowledge and practice, additional training, and competency assessments. The staff member also undertook a review of medicines used within the service to strengthen their understanding of potential side effects and the risks associated with incorrect dosing or missed administration.

The service actively sought feedback and continually looked for opportunities to improve the quality and safety of care provided. We saw evidence that complaints, concerns and incidents were used as opportunities for learning and informed actions to reduce the risk of recurrence. A digital tracking system supported the timely recording, monitoring and resolution of incidents, ensuring actions and outcomes were completed within expected timescales. The system also enabled effective management oversight, allowing senior staff to monitor progress, identify trends and escalate issues promptly where necessary.

Where improvements were identified, these were shared with staff and supported through additional guidance, learning opportunities and training as required. People, relatives and others who raised concerns were kept informed of outcomes, demonstrating a transparent and responsive approach to managing feedback and driving continuous improvement.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Transitions into the service were carefully planned and tailored to the individual, ensuring a smooth and person-centred approach. Comprehensive pre-admission assessments were completed to identify each person's needs, risks, preferences, communication requirements and desired outcomes relating to their health, wellbeing and support needs.

Although there had been no recent admissions and 2 vacant beds were available at the time of our visit, the provider demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that any future admissions would be appropriate. Detailed assessments were undertaken to determine whether the service could meet a person's needs safely and effectively, while also considering their compatibility with the existing resident group to support positive outcomes for everyone living at the home. The registered manager told us, “We will only admit people whose needs we can meet and who will mix well with the current residents”.

The service worked effectively with a range of external professionals, including hospitals, general practitioners (GP), dentists and other healthcare services, to ensure people's needs were met. Information was shared appropriately to promote continuity of care, and people were supported to access the healthcare and specialist services they required in a timely manner. This collaborative approach helped to ensure safe transitions and ongoing support that reflected people's individual needs and preferences.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

The provider responded promptly and appropriately to safeguarding concerns, demonstrating a commitment to protecting people from the risk of abuse and harm. A comprehensive safeguarding policy was in place, which was regularly reviewed and updated to reflect current guidance and best practice.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and were able to recognise the different forms of abuse, including physical, emotional, financial and neglect. They were knowledgeable about their responsibilities and could clearly explain the procedures for reporting concerns, the individuals they would report to within the service, and the external agencies they could contact if further escalation was required.

A member of staff said, “Safeguarding is lots of different things, such as physical or verbal abuse, financial or neglect”.

Records showed that safeguarding concerns were appropriately documented, investigated and referred to relevant agencies where necessary. This included local authority safeguarding teams, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and, where appropriate and consent had been provided, family members. This helped to ensure concerns were managed transparently and in line with established procedures.

The service worked effectively with partner organisations to promote and protect people's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff demonstrated an understanding of the key principles of the MCA and explained how they supported people to make their own decisions wherever possible. Where individuals lacked capacity to make specific decisions, staff worked in their best interests and followed the relevant legal framework.

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities under the MCA and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Care records contained clear information about people's capacity, decision-making support needs and any legal authorisations in place. At the time of the inspection, the provider had appropriately submitted DoLS applications for 2 people, both of which had been authorised. This helped to ensure any restrictions placed upon individuals were lawful, necessary and in their best interests, while promoting people's rights, dignity and wellbeing.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed comprehensively, with measures implemented to promote independence while avoiding unnecessary restrictions. Risk management plans were person-centred and focused on enabling people to live as independently as possible. For example, where people were at risk of falls or were unable to recognise risks associated with mobilising independently, appropriate equipment and support were provided, including grab rails, walking frames and wheelchairs.

The service was responsive to people's changing needs and made adaptations to the environment to help people remain safe and comfortable in their home. For example, a ground-floor toilet had been converted into a wet room to meet the evolving needs of a person who could no longer safely access the first-floor bathroom facilities. In addition, the person's main bedroom had been relocated to the ground floor to improve accessibility and reduce potential risks associated with mobility.

Environmental and operational risks were also appropriately assessed and managed. Risks associated with the premises, equipment and activities within the home were identified, with clear actions in place to minimise potential harm. Regular maintenance and safety checks were completed, including inspections of gas and electrical installations, helping to ensure the environment remained safe and well maintained for people living in the home.

The provider had effective fire safety arrangements in place. Each person had an individual Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) that detailed the support they would require to evacuate safely in the event of an emergency. This ensured staff had clear guidance and people could be supported promptly and safely should an evacuation be necessary.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We observed that the home was clean, well maintained and free from obvious hazards, providing people with a safe and comfortable living environment. Staff were visible throughout the day, and routine cleaning schedules were in place, with tasks recorded and any issues identified and addressed promptly. People spoke positively about the cleanliness of the service.

One person told us, “It is very nice and clean”.

The provider completed regular maintenance and safety checks to ensure the environment and equipment remained safe for people. Records demonstrated that checks were carried out consistently, with any required actions clearly identified, monitored and reviewed to ensure completion within appropriate timescales.

Equipment used to support people's mobility and independence, such as walking frames, wheelchairs and grab rails, was routinely checked and maintained to ensure it remained safe and fit for purpose. This helped to reduce risks and enabled people to move around their home safely.

Robust fire safety arrangements were in place, including regular internal and external fire safety audits to provide assurance that fire risks were effectively managed. Where issues were identified, prompt action was taken to address them. The service had clear and well-rehearsed evacuation procedures, which took account of people's individual needs and any equipment required to support those with reduced mobility. These measures helped to ensure people could be evacuated safely and efficiently in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

During our visit, we observed that there were sufficient staff on duty to support people safely and effectively throughout the day. Staffing arrangements were organised to ensure people received timely support, and a review of staff rotas confirmed that adequate staffing levels were maintained during both day and night shifts.

People told us they felt safe in the presence of staff and expressed confidence in their ability to carry out their roles. Feedback highlighted positive relationships between staff and the people they supported. One family member said, “The staff understand [name of person] individual needs, their personality and what works best for them.”

Recruitment processes were robust and designed to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Records demonstrated that appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and employment references, before staff commenced work. Staff files showed a range of relevant skills and experience across different roles within the service.

New staff received a comprehensive induction and were supported through regular supervision, training and ongoing professional development. These arrangements helped staff develop the knowledge and skills required to meet people's needs effectively and safely.

During our review of staff training records, we identified that some training had expired and was overdue for renewal. We discussed this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the issue and confirmed that the outstanding training would be prioritised. The registered manager also outlined plans to strengthen the auditing and oversight process to ensure training requiring renewal is identified promptly and completed within required timescales. This demonstrated a willingness to learn from feedback and drive continuous improvement within the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had a comprehensive infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place, which outlined clear procedures for managing infection risks and responding to outbreaks. The policy provided staff with guidance on reporting requirements, escalation processes and the actions necessary to protect both people using the service and staff from the spread of infection.

During our visit, we observed staff consistently following good infection control practices. personal protective equipment (PPE) was used appropriately when undertaking personal care, handling food, administering medicines and carrying out cleaning duties. Staff told us that PPE and other infection control supplies were readily available and replenished as needed, ensuring they could carry out their roles safely and effectively.

We observed good food hygiene practices within the kitchen. Food was stored appropriately, clearly labelled and dated, and food preparation areas were clean, organised and maintained at suitable temperatures. These measures helped to reduce the risk of food contamination and supported people's health and wellbeing.

The provider carried out regular IPC audits to monitor standards and identify areas for improvement. Records showed that any issues identified were addressed promptly and monitored to ensure actions were completed. People's bedrooms, communal areas and shared facilities were found to be clean, tidy and well maintained, contributing to a safe, comfortable and hygienic environment.

People were supported to participate in infection prevention practices wherever possible. Staff encouraged and promoted good personal hygiene, including regular hand washing, and provided support in a way that was tailored to individual needs and abilities.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines safely and in accordance with prescribing guidance. Medicines were administered as prescribed and at the correct times, including those that were time-critical, helping to ensure people's health needs were effectively managed.

There was no evidence of medicines being used inappropriately to control or influence people's behaviour. Appropriate medical equipment was routinely checked and maintained to ensure it remained safe and effective. Care plans contained clear and detailed information to guide staff in supporting people with their medicines and highlighted any medicines that required additional monitoring or presented specific risks.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered in line with current good practice guidance. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received appropriate training and demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They were also knowledgeable about the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over-Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or both) and supported individuals to access regular medicines reviews where appropriate, helping to ensure medicines remained necessary, effective and in people's best interests.

People told us they received their medicines when required and were satisfied with the support provided. One person commented, "Staff help me take my meds." Feedback and our observations indicated that medicines management arrangements were effective and reliable.

The provider had robust systems in place to oversee medicines management. Medicines were stored securely, records were accurately maintained, and regular audits were undertaken to identify and address any issues promptly. These arrangements helped to ensure people received their medicines safely, consistently and as intended by the prescriber.