CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ranvilles Nursing & Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Ranvilles Nursing & Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found improved, person-centred care, but Safe was not fully assessed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April 2022. One inspector spoke with people, staff and visiting relatives, observed care, and checked care records, audits, incidents, infection control and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was inspected for infection prevention and control but was not rated in full.
Inspectors found that care plans had improved, people's needs and preferences were being met, activities were available, and the home was well managed. Infection control arrangements were judged reassuring.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in 2019. The earlier breach about person-centred care had been addressed, and the home was now meeting that regulation.
Personalised care plans
The home had introduced computer-based care planning. Inspectors found the care plans they checked were detailed and reflected individual needs and preferences.
“All the care plans we looked at were detailed, thorough, and reflected people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Support with food and drink
People could choose their meals and where to eat. Staff offered alternatives and considered dietary needs linked to health, religion and culture.
“People had choice about their meals, both from the menu and where they chose to eat.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities, helped people keep in touch with relatives, and supported individual interests and culturally relevant events.
“The provider supported people to maintain family relationships and feel less isolated.” from the report
Sustained improvements
Inspectors found that changes made after the previous inspection had continued. The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to plan further improvements.
“Improvements we saw at our last inspection had been sustained and embedded.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including suitable visiting, PPE, testing and hygiene measures.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's care plan up to date as their needs or preferences change?
- 02What support will my relative receive with communication, especially if they have a disability or sensory impairment?
- 03How will you support my relative to maintain family relationships and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 04What infection control arrangements are currently used for visitors, testing, PPE and possible outbreaks?
- 05How do you monitor the wider safety arrangements that were not fully assessed during this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control checked under Safe; the wider Safe rating was carried forward from the previous inspection and Caring was not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 2022 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; care was safer and kinder, but personalised care and service leadership still needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over 29, 30 and 31 October 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and medicines, and checked care records, staff files, audits and incident records.
The home had improved since its previous inadequate rating. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed well, staffing levels were suitable and staff treated people with kindness and respect. The ratings for Safe and Caring were Good.
There were still important weaknesses. Care plans were often task-focused rather than personal, activities did not always match people's interests, some conditions linked to liberty safeguards had not been met, and the home did not yet have a complete overall improvement plan.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home had been in special measures since May 2019, but it was no longer rated Inadequate and was removed from special measures after this inspection.
Improved safety
Risk management, staffing and learning from accidents had improved since the previous inspection. Staff used equipment and calm approaches to support people safely.
“The provider had improved how they identified and managed risks to people's health and wellbeing, including the risk of abuse or avoidable harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had training and regular checks of their medicines practice.
“The provider had processes in place to make sure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed compassion, patience and respect. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, choices and communication needs.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Better staff training
The home had brought in specialist training and staff said the quality and amount of training had improved. This included training about dementia and supporting people to move safely.
“All staff we spoke with said they felt the quality and amount of training they received had improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Working with health services
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and supported people to access appointments. Healthcare professionals said staff made appropriate referrals and shared advice.
“People had access to healthcare services.” from the report
Care plans were not personal enough
seriousSome care plans described tasks but not the person's preferences, routines, history, spiritual needs or preferred clothing. This was a continuing breach of Regulation 9.
“The provider had not done enough to make sure people's care plans reflected their needs, individual preferences, aspirations, interests and personal history.” from the report
Activities were missed or not individual
needs fixingOne person who should have had daily one-to-one time in the shared lounge did not receive it on 16 days in October. Activities also did not always follow people's hobbies, social needs or cultural interests.
“They had not received this support on 16 days in October before our inspection.” from the report
End of life plans lacked detail
needs fixingEnd of life plans mainly covered general matters such as pain, hospital admission and resuscitation. They did not record individual, spiritual or religious wishes, or how family should be involved.
“End of life care plans remained basic with little information about people's individual preferences and wishes.” from the report
Some liberty safeguard conditions were not met
needs fixingIn two cases, conditions or recommendations about access to family or someone from the same cultural background had not been successfully met.
“However, the provider had not always complied with other conditions.” from the report
Quality checks were not fully joined up
needs fixingSome monthly audit records were missing. There was no high-level check showing that audits were completed on time and that identified actions had been followed through.
“There were still some gaps, with no records available of some monthly internal audits.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan records their routines, preferences, personal history, religion and spiritual needs rather than just listing tasks?
- 02How will you provide one-to-one time and activities if my relative needs support to leave their room or join shared activities?
- 03How do you record and review a person's individual end of life wishes, including family involvement and spiritual or religious needs?
- 04How will you meet any conditions attached to a person's liberty safeguards, including access to family or someone from the same cultural background?
- 05Can you show me the current service improvement plan and explain how you check that audit actions are completed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
Every inspection of Ranvilles Nursing & Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ranvilles Nursing & Residential Care Home →
- November 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ranvilles Nursing & Residential Care Home →
- May 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.