Ronti Care Solutions Ltd

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives mostly spoke well of the care staff's attitude. Feedback confirmed that staff built positive relationships with the people they supported, with 1 relative noting, "The carers are very friendly, kind and compassionate. All of the fundamentals are in place but so much could be improved." Another family member added, "Yes most of them are very kind from what I can see." However, people also highlighted areas where a lack of attention to detail and inconsistent support undermined their dignity and independence. Simple daily acts that promote self-respect and standard hospitality were sometimes overlooked. For example, a relative shared, "They heat [name] ready meals up, but then they serve it in the little plastic trays. They could put it on a plate." Furthermore, some people experienced a decline in support for essential personal hygiene tasks that they could no longer manage alone. One person expressed their distress over this inconsistency explaining, "The only thing that has been a bit upsetting is that they used to help me with teeth cleaning but now most of them won’t do it. I don’t have the strength in my hands to do it alone" whilst a relative told us, “One evening [name] catheter leaked. It turns out that the previous carer had not put a valve on the catheter. When I tried to confront this carer, they tried to argue the situation. [Care staff] said they couldn’t find a valve, so they didn’t bother putting one on.” This lack of consistent physical assistance directly impacted the person's well-being and highlighted gaps in the delivery of dignified, responsive care.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

While basic care was delivered, staff often prioritised fixed task-driven schedules over tailored person-centred support. Care records frequently lacked clear documentation regarding individuals' personal aspirations and specific communication needs, meaning care was occasionally delivered inconsistently. Furthermore, reviews into people's backgrounds and abilities were not routinely updated to reflect their evolving strengths. Consequently, the service missed opportunities to empower individuals, safely maximise their independence, or consistently respect their diverse identities.

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

The service culture did not consistently support a person-centred approach, restricting people's independence, choice, and control. Care delivery was rarely shaped around peoples' specific needs, preferences, or aspirations, leading to standard routines rather than tailored support. Inspection of care records revealed that plans did not always reflect people’s personal goals, inherent strengths, or future aspirations. Because staff lacked detailed guidance on what mattered most to people, care was frequently task-led rather than outcome-focused. Consequently, the service missed vital opportunities to empower people, build their confidence, or help them maintain active control over their daily lives.

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.

Care staff lacked the up-to-date information necessary to manage emerging risks safely. When people experienced a decline in their well-being, care records failed to provide essential guidance for staff to follow during critical moments. For example, 1 person who experienced periods of anxiety and confusion did not have a behaviour support plan that reflected their known, escalating risks. This lack of information left care staff without the necessary strategies to de-escalate situations or respond to immediate needs safely.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider’s approach to wellbeing and enablement was inconsistent, leaving staff without the support, training and systems needed to feel competent and valued. Although some staff reported positive, supportive relationships with the registered manager, this positive experience was not shared across the entire service. A lack of robust infrastructure meant that staff did not always receive appropriate development opportunities or reliable managerial oversight. Without these systems in place, many staff members lacked the necessary tools and guidance to feel fully confident in their roles. This disjointed culture ultimately diluted team morale and hindered the care staff's ability to meet people's care needs safely and effectively.