You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 March 2018

Unity In Care is a domiciliary care agency which is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 35 people including children with disabilities.

This inspection took place on 16, 17 January 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be available in the office. This was also to allow the registered manager time to arrange some home visits for us as part of this inspection.

At the last inspection in February 2016, we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provicer to take steps to impove. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

We rated this service as Requires Improvement in April 2016. Following that inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan by September 2016 to show what they would do to improve the key questions 'Is this service safe, and well led. This was because the provider had not operated effective systems or processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. On this inspection we found improvements had been made.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. The registered manager was also the director of the service.

People were supported to receive care from the agency following a detailed assessment. This covered all aspects of the care required by the person. Such as how many calls they would need each day, what their needs were in relation to mobility, continence and personal care, moving and handling and nutrition.

The service had a suitable recruitment procedure. Recruitment checks were in place and demonstrated that people employed had satisfactory skills and knowledge needed to care for people. All staff files contained appropriate checks, such as two references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

Although the registered manager told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs could be met, people comments varied on visits being undertaken at the allocated time. One person told us, “The time keeping of the carers varies and they are often later than the agreed target time, although timekeeping has improved recently after I complained”.

People were generally complimentary about staff and told us that they were treated with kindness and consideration. They had good relationships with their allocated care staff.

Staff took action to minimise the risks of avoidable harm to people from abuse. They understood the importance of keeping people safe and could describe how they would recognise and report abuse in line with the service’s protocols on identifying and reporting abuse of adults and children.

Management of medicines was undertaken in a safe way and recording of such was completed to show people had received the medicines they required. Regular auditing of medicines charts took place to help ensure staff consistently followed best practice.

Staff received effective training in safety systems, processes and practices such as moving and handling, fire safety and infection control. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities in relation to infection control.

Staff had received training and supervisions that helped them to perform their duties. T

Inspection areas



Updated 10 March 2018

The service was safe

There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs although people told us calls were often late.

Recruitment processes for prospective staff were robust.

Risks to individual people had been identified and written guidance for staff about how to manage risks was in place.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and followed up by staff.

There was a plan in place to ensure people's care would continue in the event of an emergency.

People's medicines were managed safely



Updated 10 March 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training to help ensure they worked to best practice.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities in respect of this. People signed their own consent to care.

People were supported with their dietary requirements.

Healthcare professionals were involved in people's care when needed.



Updated 10 March 2018

The service was caring.

Staff showed people respect and gave them individual attention.

Staff were caring, kind and empathetic to people. People were supported to remain as independent as they could.

People received care from staff who knew them and had developed relationships with them.



Updated 10 March 2018

The service was responsive to people's needs.

People's care plans contained comprehensive information about their care needs and good guidance for staff.

People were able to discuss their preferences and choices for end of life care.

Information about how to make a complaint was available for people and their relatives



Updated 10 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager demonstrated a commitment to improving the service the agency provided.

People were encouraged to give their feedback on the care they received. Comments and feedback was responded to by the manager.

Quality assurance checks were completed to help ensure the care provided was of good quality.

Staff felt supported by management and the registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in alerting CQC to any serious events that took place, such as an accident or safeguarding concern.