Ronti Care Solutions Ltd

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 39 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were overwhelmingly task-based rather than focused on the person being supported, lacking the personalised detail needed for responsive care. The documentation lacked essential personal background, preferences, and histories, and records were not kept up to date to reflect people's changing support needs. In several instances, the information recorded regarding a person's specific care requirements was entirely incorrect. Furthermore, while certain risks to peoples' health and well-being were noted within the daily care notes, the care plans completely lacked any corresponding guidance or strategies to manage and mitigate those risks. This left staff without a reliable, accurate framework to deliver safe, responsive care.

The provider did not ensure that people's preferences, even when clearly identified and documented, were respected in the daily delivery of care. For example, the loved ones of 1 individual had requested that male care staff not be assigned to their loved one's care. Despite this clearly stated preference, the provider ignored the family's wishes and sent a male staff member to deliver highly sensitive personal care. By neglecting to honour these personal choices, the provider did not deliver care that respected individuals' right to shape their own support.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider did not consistently guarantee continuity of care or protect people during emergency handovers. While people mostly reported receiving support from familiar staff, care calls were planned around staffing availability rather than individual needs and preferences. For example, 1 person told us, “This agency very much feels like a business, but I suppose they are respectful towards me.” This logistical approach meant staff visits were not always consistent, leaving some individuals unaware of when their carers would arrive. Furthermore, people did not have copies of their care plans available in their homes. The absence of these essential records created a significant risk, as vital medical and support information would be difficult to share with external healthcare professionals during an emergency or hospital admission.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not ensure that essential, accessible information was consistently available to support people's decision-making. Individuals lacked copies of their care plans in their homes, leaving them without direct access to provider contact details or emergency care pathways. This isolation was reflected in feedback from 1 person, who told us, “I never speak to anyone in the office. I don’t even know who the manager is and I don’t know the names of my carers. They don’t wear their badges properly.” Furthermore, leaders were unable to demonstrate how they supported individuals to make informed choices about their care. Crucially, the service could not provide examples to show that information was ever given to people in an accessible format when communication was difficult, leaving individuals with complex communication needs or cognitive impairments without appropriate support.

The provider did not consistently involve people in decisions about their care, communicate changes, or provide straightforward ways for them to share feedback, ideas and complaints. Feedback from several people and their relatives indicated that the service took a passive approach to engagement and did not use comments to drive improvements. For example, 1 person highlighted the lack of meaningful action sharing, “I have given the odd bit of feedback, but I can’t say I’ve noticed any significant changes as a result of that.” A relative noted a complete lack of proactive communication stating, “Nobody from the agency has called for any feedback.” This lack of involvement left some people feeling excluded from the care planning process, with another relative explaining that external partners had to manage the process entirely, stating, “Essex County Council planned all of [name's] care.” Because of these widespread gaps in communication, the provider could not demonstrate that they consistently used feedback to improve the quality of the service.

However, some relatives and people shared positive experiences, noting that they felt fully involved in co-producing their support plans. Despite the gaps found elsewhere, some relatives experienced a highly collaborative approach from the team. For instance, 1 relative told us, “Everything to do with [name's] care has always been a joint decision.” Another person echoed this positive sentiment sharing, “When it came to the planning of care, it was just between me and the Company.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider did not demonstrate that care plans and staff training frameworks proactively supported equal access to healthcare for people with specific diagnosed conditions. During the inspection, we were not assured that staff had received sufficient or robust training to recognise early signs of clinical deterioration. Care plans completely lacked guidance to inform staff when a person might be becoming unwell or when to refer them to external health professionals. Furthermore, individuals did not have specific care plans in place to guide staff on how to safely support them with complex diagnosed needs, such as a high risk of skin breakdown. While we identified no immediate negative impact on people during the inspection, the lack of robust documentation and training created an ongoing risk that staff would miss vital signs of deterioration and delay essential healthcare referrals.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Although the provider had policies for equity and equality, they could not prove these principles were actively monitored or used to fix inequalities. Care plans showed no evidence that support was tailored to match people's protected characteristics, and records for necessary reasonable adjustments were missing. Instead of focusing on individuals, decisions about home visit times, daily routines, and community access were usually based on staff availability and scheduling convenience. This approach meant care was organised around operational convenience rather than people's individual needs and choices.

People were not 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 provider did not ensure that people’s wishes, preferences, and choices for their end-of-life support were anticipated or documented. Our review of care records found no evidence of advanced care planning across the care plans we checked. Documentation lacked any recorded discussions or decisions regarding people's future wishes, emergency care preferences, or end-of-life care goals. This complete lack of recorded information meant staff were left without guidance on how to support people in line with their personal choices during a crisis or at the end of their lives, creating a significant risk that their preferences and rights would not be respected.