This inspection was completed by one inspector. We spoke with three people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and a staff member who all provided care to people. The evidence we collected helped us to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said: 'I feel safe here and the staff are all very good'.
The staff we spoke with knew and understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure people remained safe. Staff were able to tell us the different ways people might experience abuse that could place them at risk. Staff knew what their responsibilities were and what steps to take if they suspected abuse had taken place. We found staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had further safeguarding training planned.
The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We were told that no DoLS applications had been made. Staff were able to describe when an application should be considered. We saw records that showed staff had received training in mental capacity awareness.
People's records were up to date and reflected people's current health needs. We saw risk assessments were in place and provided appropriate guidance for staff to follow. We also found care reviews had been completed when required.
Is the service effective?
People had an individual care plan which explained what their needs were. People told us they had been involved in their care assessment and their contributions were listened to. Risk assessments had been reviewed and identified current risks.
People had access to health care professionals which supported their health care needs. We found staff had received the appropriate training which enabled them to provide suitable care for people when needed.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by staff that provided care at people's preferred pace. Staff were patient, attentive and responded appropriately to people's requests. Staff promoted individual choice and supported people who wanted to remain as independent as possible. We found individual wishes were taken into account.
Is the service responsive?
People received help and support from other health professionals when required, such as doctors, dentists and community health support.
People were supported to participate in activities inside and outside of the home.
People told us they were able to raise any concerns they had, although all the people we spoke with were satisfied with the service they received.
Staff said they had a handover at the start of each shift to update them of any changes in people's needs since they were last on duty. Staff told us they found this useful because it identified how people were feeling and what people's current health situation was.
Is the service well led?
The service worked alongside other health care professionals and agencies to make sure people received the care they required.
The service had an effective system in place that assured them of the quality of service they provided. Rons Place completed regular checks of the service they provided and sought the views of people they supported. We found they had acted upon these views to improve the delivery of care.
People's care records and other records were accurate, available and complete.