You are here

Archived: Unity Care Solutions Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

Unity Care Solutions is a nursing and domiciliary care agency based in Eastbourne. The office is close to the town centre and has parking spaces to the rear of the building and on local roads. It provides personal care and nursing care to adults and children living in their own homes covering Eastbourne town and the surrounding areas. People receiving this care had varied care and support needs. This included help with personal hygiene, the administration of medicines and support in the preparation of food. Some people had memory loss and lived with dementia. Other people had mobility problems and needed assistance in moving, sometimes with the support of two staff and equipment. One person had nursing needs that required 24 hour nursing care and others had complex care needs that required staff to undertake additional training including care of breathing equipment.

This inspection was announced with the provider given 48 hours’ notice. The inspection took place on the 6 April 2017. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 16 people. The agency had a registered manager who was also the provider of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People’s care was personalised to reflect their wishes and what was important to them. People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. People knew when their visits were to take place and what staff member was providing the care. People were introduced to staff before they provided them with care and they were looked after by a team of regular staff. All feedback from people and their representatives regarding the service and the staff was positive. They told us they felt safe with the staff who were well trained to do their work.

The agency employed enough staff with the right skills to meet people’s needs and people’s safety was ensured through appropriate recruitment practices. There was an induction programme in place and staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs. Staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood the importance of people giving their consent. The management team knew the correct procedures to follow when people lacked capacity to make decisions. Staff understood and could recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what to do if they needed to raise a safeguarding concern. Training records confirmed staff had received training on safeguarding adults and children at risk.

People were looked after by staff who were caring and kind and took account of people’s privacy and dignity. People said they were happy with the care and support staff provided to them and that it met their individual needs. The needs and choices of people had been clearly documented in their care plans. Where people’s needs changed people’s care and support plans were reviewed to ensure the person received the care and support they required.

People were regularly asked for their feedback about the service and support they received and were aware how to make a complaint. There was an open and positive culture at the service. The staff told us they felt supported and listened to by the registered manager and the office staff. The agency had clear aims and objectives and worked to improve the quality of the service. They used feedback from internal and external resources and responded positively to any feedback received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was safe.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe with the staff that cared and supported them.

There were enough staff who had been safely recruited to meet the needs of people who used the service.

There were clear policies in place to protect people from abuse, and staff had a clear understanding of what to do if safeguarding concerns were raised.

Risk assessments were completed to ensure people and staff were safe when providing care and support. There were systems in place to manage people�s medicine safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was effective.

There was an induction programme in place and staff received the training and support they required to meet people�s needs.

Staff had an understanding of consent and ensured people were provided with choice. Staff were trained on the MCA and understood its principles.

Where required, staff supported people to eat and drink and maintain a healthy diet.

Staff knew people well and referred to an appropriate healthcare professional when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect promoting their dignity and worked in a professional manner and maintaining people�s confidentiality.

People were happy with the care and support they received. They felt their individual needs were met and were understood by staff.

People said they were listened to and their views and preferences were taken into account.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People told us they were involved in planning the care and support provided and changing needs were responded to.

People�s choices were respected and supported.

There was a complaints procedure and people felt comfortable raising any concerns or making a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 May 2017

The service was well-led.

Systems for quality monitoring and assurance were well developed.

The management and leadership of the service was approachable and supportive. There was a clear vision and values for the service.

Statutory notifications had been consistently submitted to the Care Quality Commission.

The registered manager and office staff responded positively to feedback and used this to improve the service.