Archived: Unity Care Solutions

Updated 26 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 23 May 2018 and 29 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and office staff are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Before the inspection, we checked the information we held about the service and provider. This included previous inspection reports and any statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send to us by law. We were unable to review the Provider Information report (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what they do well and improvements they plan to make. Unity Care Solutions had been inspected in 2017 and were only inspected again, due to a change in their location. Therefore, they were not asked to submit a PIR for this inspection.

Two inspectors were present at the office on day one and one inspector on day two. Although not present at the location, an expert-by experience supported the inspection team by speaking with peoples relatives by telephone. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Due to the nature of people’s complex needs, people were not able to tell us about their experiences. Therefore, we spoke with relatives that knew them best, to gain their views of the care provided. During inspection, we spoke with five relatives about their day-to-day experiences of the service. We spoke with the branch manager, three staff and a community assessor. We spent time reviewing records, which included four care plans, five staff files, medication administration records, staff rotas and training records. Other documentation that related to the management of the service such as policies and procedures, complaints, compliments, accidents and incidents were viewed.

Following inspection, we spoke with three professionals about their experiences working with Unity Care Solutions in supporting people.

Updated 26 June 2018

Unity Care Solution is a nursing and domiciliary care agency, based in Eastbourne. At the time of our inspection, they provided care to 14 people living in their own homes. It provided a service to adults and children, some with complex health and care needs that required high levels of support.

Not everyone using Unity Care Solution received the regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection, we rated the service as Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Although the registered manager was not present at the inspection, the branch manager gave support. The branch manager had recently applied to be the registered manager of the service and is currently going through the registration process.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, the provider did not always have understanding of who could legally give consent on people’s behalf. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People were safe. Staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. People had a range of detailed and individualised risk assessments to keep them safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure peoples safety and contingency plans to ensure people still received care in the event of an emergency.

Staff received regular training, specific to people’s needs. They received supervisions and attended meetings to ensure they were well supported and had the knowledge and skills to support people. People’s health was improved with regular input from a variety of professionals.

Relative's felt that staff were kind and caring and told us people liked staff that supported them. It was evident that staff knew people well and everyone we spoke to felt that strong relationships had been built with people and their families. People's privacy, dignity and independence were promoted at all times.

Care plans were person centred and emphasised involvement from people, their relatives and health professionals. Relatives felt that they were listened to and were confident complaints were dealt with effectively.

Relatives, staff and professionals felt that the service was well led. The registered manager completed a variety of audits, including staff and people’s care plan documentation. This ensured that people’s documentation was reflective of their current support needs. The provider sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff to improve service provision.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.