You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 June 2018

UBU - 67 Elland Road is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

UBU - 67 Elland Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to seven people who have learning disabilities.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 May 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The second day was announced.

At the last inspection we found the provider did not always keep accurate and up to date health action plans and were rated requires improvement in the effective domain. At this inspection we found health action plans were accurate and updated to ensure people’s needs were met.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. However; the area manager was in the process of applying as a temporary measure until the manager could apply. 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.

Care plan records were not always accurate to show when actions had been taken, therefore we have made a recommendation about records management.

The provider had robust systems and procedures in place to keep people safe and staff were competent in their knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to safeguard people. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns should this be required.

Medicines were managed safely although we did find gaps in recording when medicines had been administered. ‘As required’ medicines were administered when needed.

Risk assessments had been completed and reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and actions taken to mitigate future risks.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure people were of suitable character. Training was mandatory for staff to ensure they had adequate skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported with supervisions and appraisals for further development.

Safety checks were completed regularly and the premises was clean, tidy and action plans showed continuous improvements were being made within the home.

The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance with capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications made. Staff also understood MCA guidance and people were able to provide consent in a variety of ways including through facial expressions and body language.

People’s nutritional needs were met and health professionals were involved in people’s care when required. Health action plans were used when people had health appointments and records showed the improvements made to people’s health.

We observed positive and friendly interactions between the staff and people living in the home. Staff were caring, kind and respected peoples wishes. We saw people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible using alternative communications to allow people to make choices about their care.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff provided explanations when carrying out any personal care to ensure people knew what was happening at all times.

Care plans were person centred and reviewed regu

Inspection areas



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Medicines were managed safely although records were not always completed.

Risk assessments were specific to people and updated regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively with actions taken to mitigate future risks.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and robust systems were in place to recruit staff.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was effective.

The provider understood how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and used best interest decisions when required.

Training and induction programmes were provided to give staff the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Supervisions and appraisals also supported staff with their development.

People were supported with their nutritional needs and supported to access input from health professionals when required.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with care, dignity and respect. People had positive relationships with staff.

People�s care records detailed their wishes and preferences around the care and treatment provided. Individualised communication methods were used to support people to make choices.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and involved fully in their care planning. Staff also provided explanations to ensure people understood their care.



Updated 26 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and were regularly reviewed.

People were offered choices and provided with accessible information to help them make decisions about their care.

People were encouraged to partake in activities to avoid social isolation.

Complaints were managed effectively and people told us they knew how to complain if needed.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 June 2018

The service was not always well led.

Records had not always been accurate or completed to show when actions had been taken.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor and improve services. Surveys were used to gather people�s views.

Staff felt confident any concerns would be effectively managed. Meetings were held so people could raise their views and be informed of changes within the home.

Relatives and staff told us the culture was positive, honest and open.