Ranger Home Care Ltd – Main Office

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed when the person started with the provider. These included people’s physical health, wellbeing and communication needs.
Reviews of people’s needs were undertaken regularly and any changes in the meantime would be updated in their care plans. Relatives confirmed they were involved with people’s care plans and able to make changes where needed. Care plans were person-centred and relevant to individual needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
The provider monitored the weight of people where possible for ongoing changes affecting their health. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was then used to check if they were at risk of malnutrition. The provider relied on care staff reporting any concerns where people did not want to be weighed or they were at risk of skin breakdown. There was evidence of how the provider followed up with professionals to better support their care and treatment. Recognised tools were also used to assess people following a fall to ensure any injuries would be picked up and responded to appropriately.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
The provider worked well with other professionals. We received positive feedback from professionals we contacted. They cited how competent the provider was, communication was effective and there was always a focus on what was best for the person. There was evidence of good communication between the service and medical professionals. Office staff told us how they worked with occupational therapists and physiotherapists to better support people’s needs.
Handovers were in place so that live-in care staff could remain up to date with people’s care when they changed over. One relative told us the service worked well with a previous provider when they took over the care package.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People's health and well-being was routinely monitored and recorded in their care notes. Any changes were reported to office staff or picked up via reviews of care notes.
The provider was working to implement extra tools to enhance future monitoring of people’s care outcomes. This included recording people’s vital signs to check for possible deterioration.

Improvements had been made following our previous assessment. The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider recorded decision specific mental capacity assessments for people. Where people lacked capacity to make a decision, an appropriate decision was made in their best interests. For example, there was evidence of input from the GP, mental health nurse, and advocate when assessing whether it was in the person's best interests for staff to support them with the administration of their medicines.
Staff had a good understanding of their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and what it meant to people in practice. Staff told us they obtained consent from people when delivering personal care or administering medicines.
The provider had people or their authorised representative sign to consent to the care provided. The provider obtained evidence to confirm the representative was authorised to sign on people’s behalf. There was also evidence of a court appointed deputy in place, and the provider understood their function.
Where a person did not have someone to speak on their behalf, the provider worked with independent advocates who worked in the person’s best interests. There was evidence of meetings with advocates to show this.