Archived: HMP Ranby

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We reviewed 1 quality statement under the well-led key question. We found that improvements had been made and a service development plan included clear actions to drive improvements.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

At our last inspection we found staffing deficiencies which were known to the provider. The healthcare staffing model had remained unaddressed by the provider, despite these issues being highlighted in the last 3 health needs analyses of the health provision for patients. Alongside the provider’s high vacancy rate, we found this had impacted staff and patients negatively with delays in many areas of treatment.

Since the last inspection a new provider was due to take over the healthcare service in September 2025. As a result, the business case to NHSE commissioners to increase resources had not progressed. Despite this, the provider had significantly increased resources in the service to improve safety and outcomes for patients. A service development plan was now in place and had been shared with the staff team and displayed in a communal staff area for people to look through. Actions were directly linked to the previous CQC inspection and were timebound evidencing progress in areas such as staff recruitment and patient engagement. Staff we spoke with during the inspection told us they felt more positive about the direction of travel for the service and understood the work being undertaken to improve safety.

At our previous inspection we found ongoing issues in relation to office equipment had not been addressed by the provider. Staff told us they did not have the office furniture or equipment they needed to carry out their roles and this often led to them being unable to complete patient records in a timely manner. During this inspection we were informed this issue had now been resolved, and the equipment was due to be delivered the week following this inspection.

Patient engagement forums had now been established, and 3 meetings had taken place since the last inspection. Health staff had utilised these meetings to share information about healthcare and request feedback from patients. For example, patients fed back in the February 2025 forum that weekend medicines administration times were too late. Health staff raised this with the prison and were able to feed back to patients in the next meeting.

At our last inspection there was no clinical audit programme, and we did not see evidence of regular audits taking place to monitor and improve services. This time we found a range of audits had been implemented by managers under each pathway. For example, mental health care planning audits were taking place during staff supervision, and regular infection prevention and control audits were now in place.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.