CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ranmore House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Ranmore House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some medicines records were incomplete.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 23 October 2019. They spoke with all five people living at the home, two staff members, the manager, the providers and one relative. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment, staff supervision and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, supported by enough trained staff, and received personalised care. Staff supported independence, communication, activities, healthcare and family involvement.
There were a few issues to keep under review. Some handwritten medicines entries were unsigned, although this was corrected immediately. No staff had yet completed the Care Certificate, but they had been enrolled. Applications for DoLS assessments had been made, but no authorisations were in place during the inspection.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in April 2017. The report says there had been a change of provider and a new manager since then.
Support for independence
Staff supported people to make choices, take positive risks and develop new skills. Care plans set out what people could do for themselves.
“People were supported to take positive risks to promote their independence.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors found caring relationships between people and staff. Staff knew people well and understood what mattered to them.
“There was a stable staff team who knew people well and what mattered to them.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had individual activity planners and were supported to go out, pursue interests and take holidays.
“People were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Medicines records
minorSome handwritten entries on medicines sheets had not been signed. The home corrected this immediately, but families may want to ask how checks now prevent this happening again.
“However, some hand-written entries on the medicine's sheets had not been signed.” from the report
Care Certificate not yet completed
needs fixingNo staff had completed the Care Certificate when inspectors visited. The manager had signed all staff up to complete it.
“No staff had completed the Care Certificate, a set of national standards social care workers are expected to adhere to.” from the report
DoLS authorisations
needs fixingThe manager said the required applications had been made, but no DoLS authorisations were in place at the time of inspection. Families should ask about the current position if restrictions may apply to their relative.
“However, no authorisations were in place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure every medicines entry is signed?
- 02Have staff completed the Care Certificate since the inspection, and what training is still outstanding?
- 03What is the current position on the DoLS applications and authorisations?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, including easy read information or other formats?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would their choices be recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Ranmore House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector met all five people living in the home and spoke with relatives, a healthcare professional, the manager and staff. The inspector also checked care plans, medicine records, risk assessments, accident records, complaints and audits.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Staff understood people's needs and supported their health, activities, communication, privacy and choices.
The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection. Earlier concerns about the safety of the environment, staff supervision, people's dignity and record management had been addressed. Management checks were being used to identify and act on issues.
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and given by trained staff. Records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed, with no gaps or errors in the administration records.
“The medicines administration record (MAR) charts were completed properly, without gaps or errors which meant people had received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that respected their privacy, dignity, communication and routines.
“Staff promoted people's privacy, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to choose activities based on their interests, including shopping, swimming, walks, social clubs, holidays and activities at home.
“People had individual activity plans that had been discussed and agreed.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, communication, health, mobility and emotional wellbeing. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“Care plans were well written and informative.” from the report
Improved management
The report says the home had acted on concerns from the previous inspection. Record keeping, maintenance arrangements and management checks had improved.
“At this inspection records management had improved and showed the management of quality auditing was effective in identifying issues and acting on these.” from the report
No formal relatives' meetings
minorRelatives were involved in individual care decisions, but the report says formal relatives' meetings did not take place. Families may want to ask how relatives can give views and receive updates.
“Relatives meetings did not take place.” from the report
Some redecoration still planned
minorManagement said that some rooms needed redecorating. The plan was to do this while people were away to reduce disruption.
“The registered manager told us part of the business plan for the next six months was to identify rooms that needed redecorating.” from the report
- 01What improvements from the previous inspection have been maintained, especially to the environment, records and staff supervision?
- 02How will you involve our family member in choosing activities, meals and daily routines?
- 03How do you support people who communicate using signs, gestures, diaries or special words?
- 04How are medicines, including as-needed medicines, checked and reviewed?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise concerns if there are no formal relatives' meetings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it also checked whether improvements identified at the previous inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ranmore House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.