Ranger Home Care Ltd – Main Office

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, respected their privacy and dignity.

Relatives told us staff were, “Kind, gentle, engaging and they know [person’s] likes and dislikes”, and “Rather than have the TV on all of the time they communicate with [person] and talk to [person] about news and current affairs which [person] is interested in.” Another relative told us staff were, “Kind and compassionate.”
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We reviewed people’s care plans and found they contained detailed information around people’s life history, social hobbies and preferences.

Relatives told us how staff empowered people to maintain independence as individuals. One relative said, “They give her choices and talk to her and always ask what she wants.” Another relative told us staff were, “Kind, gentle, engaging and they know [person’s] likes and dislikes.” Relatives told us how people were supported to engage in their individual activities, for example attending church and social clubs.

The registered manager told us, “People will tell us what they want to achieve, and we will make it happen.”
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Although some care plans noted how people were able to express when they wanted to have time and space to themselves, some evidence we found demonstrated people were not always supported with independence, choice and control. For example, one person’s care plan noted they “must be supervised at all times”, and another person’s care plan stated their electric wheelchair could be turned off by staff if they presented distressed and would attempt to physically harm staff. This did not demonstrate people were empowered and supported to maintain independence and control. This form of practice was restrictive, and the provider had not demonstrated they identified this.
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We found some examples in people’s care records where staff did not respond to minimise concerns. For example, one person was noted to be vomiting with low urine output. There was no documented evidence staff sought medical attention without delay. This meant people’s needs were not always immediately responded to. This demonstrated there was a risk people would experience avoidable harm as a result.

One staff told us, “[I’m] trained in seizures. My client had history of mild seizures but has not had any.” However, when we reviewed this against the staff training matrix, we found this staff had not completed epilepsy training. It was therefore unclear how staff would be able to respond to people’s immediate needs and always ensure safe outcomes.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The registered manager told us they had a monthly forum with staff. They said, “All carers can log on, up to 40 people join, [manager] will have an agenda of what to go through, but it can go off, and staff have a chat. This helps their wellbeing. I don’t want any of my carers to feel isolated.”

Staff told us, “I am treated well and enjoy my job” and “Definitely treated well, very good. Very communicative and compassionate and always ask about my well-being.” Staff were able to complete anonymous wellbeing surveys and speak to the carer liaison manager.