You are here

Archived: Unique Personnel (UK) Limited

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 August 2012
Date of Publication: 26 September 2012
Inspection Report - DC published 26 September 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

People we spoke with who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them and they were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. All the people we spoke with said that care workers understood and supported their choices and preferences. Most people had regular care workers that they knew well and had built good relationships. “they provide care to my husband the way we like it, specific to his needs.” “My carers know what I can and cannot do"

Some people said that when they had raised concerns about a care worker, these concerns were always addressed and, in most cases, the worker had been replaced.

Most people told us that staff always asked how they would like to be addressed.

Some people were asked about their specialised needs with regard to religion or culture, the majority said that they had no need “no I don’t have any specific needs but feel sure that if I did they would respect and fall in with my wishes”

Care workers protected people’s privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. For example one person said, “they are very professional in how they provide personal care, always ensuring my husband is covered and his dignity is maintained.”

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We saw copies of information on the service in people’s home when we visited.

Other evidence

Was privacy & dignity respected?

The manager told us that privacy, dignity and supporting people’s choices was included in staff induction, ongoing training and supervision. This was confirmed by the five staff records we looked at and in our discussions with care workers and other staff. One staff member said, “living in the community I work in, you get to know people very well. Treating people with respect is a big part of my culture and I treat all of the people I assist with dignity and respect.”

Competency checks on privacy and dignity were part of spot checks on care workers at people’s homes and at one to one meetings between care workers and their coordinator and manager. Staff understood how conditions like dementia could impact on people’s judgement and how they needed to be vigilant to protect people’s privacy and dignity. A staff member said: “I have completed dementia training and my awareness is to make sure the people I help are safe and cared for.”

Were people involved in making choices & decisions about their care?

Care workers we spoke with were clear that their role was to understand the wishes of people who use services and support their independence. Care workers said that they usually were able to get to know people and spend time with them. They said this enabled them to involve people in planning their own care and support. One staff member’s comment was similar to those of her colleagues: “I live in the local community and the people I support live close by so I always get time to chat and get to know people properly”.

All new referrals came from the local authority who had a contract with the agency. The manager and coordinators completed all new assessments, which were written up for people who use the service to read and check before they signed and agreed to them.

We looked at seven care records. These contained information about each person's preferred name, identified the person's usual routines and wishes, and outlined how they would like their care delivered. People received an information guide which included their rights and described what they should expect.

The agency sought people’s views by phoning them and visiting them in their homes. Care coordination staff reviewed people’s care about every twelve months and documented any changes. We accompanied a care coordinator on two home visits and, with permission, observed some of the review process. People who used the service were familiar with being involved in reviewing and planning their own care.

One person contacted told us that they were not happy with the care provided at times as staff would be late and they would have to contact them by telephone. They thought they were aware of the care and support they should be receiving however they did not have a care plan from the agency.