Ranger Home Care Ltd – Main Office

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Staff were clear on the importance of person-centred care. Care plans supported them to provide care tailored to people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and were able to take appropriate action to any changes in their needs. This ranged from getting updates to the care plan or seeking medical support if a person’s health deteriorated. Relatives we spoke with confirmed people supported were receiving person-centred care appropriate to their needs.

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 service worked with people and relatives to ensure good continuity of care. Relatives told us they had a consistent care team with one lead staff member and other staff who covered when the lead staff member was not working.
The live-in care staff’s phone remained in people's homes for each staff member to use to aid continuity when live-in carers changed over. The provider also used personalised online messaging to aid communication with people, their families and staff. One example was where staff had liaised with a dog walker to be able to show the person where their dogs were when out walking.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

There was a suitable complaints policy in place and people, and their relatives were aware of this. Relatives told us complaints were dealt with appropriately by the office staff and registered manager. The provider handled any complaints in line with their policy and had improvement plans in place based on this feedback to show lessons learned.
The provider had online messaging systems, which enabled people and relatives to give feedback, ask questions or raise issues with senior staff. The service also gained feedback through surveys. This helped to ensure there were opportunities for people to give feedback about their care.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

The service had worked with people where they had advanced wishes in place to plan their end-of-life care. The provider ensured ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms were used and made it clear where people had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation agreement (DNACPR) in place.
The provider understood how personal end of life care was and involved people and families in these decisions as well as providing specialist support for care staff. Training was available when required for live-in care staff. The provider worked well with nursing teams and other professionals to provide good end of life care.
The provider helped staff to support people to reach their future goals including having holidays away.