Ur Care Solution Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We were unable to make contact with anyone who was receiving care or their representatives. During the interview with the registered manager, they did not always refer to people with kindness or dignity. Care plans did not contain information about how to maintain a person’s dignity while caring for them.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care records were extremely limited in relation to person-centred information. There was no information relating to people’s cultural needs recorded.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Daily care records showed that one person experienced identical care on every day. This did not promote choice over their daily lives. The registered manager shared examples of how people were involved in the community however the daily notes did not show this was taking place. The person’s care plan included no information about whether they required support with activities or their preferences if so.

The provider did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We were unable to contact the people receiving care to explore this issue with them. The registered manager said that feedback was sought from people on a monthly basis, however, was unable to provide any evidence to support this. Care documents were out of date and did not show evidence of the service being reactive to changes.

The provider did not care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider had not supported sponsored staff appropriately, this had resulted in the revocation of their sponsorship licence. However, staff reported being well supported by the management team. A staff member said, “Yeah, we are well supported by the management whenever needed.”

The registered manager said staff had received an induction when joining the service however, they were unable to provide suitable evidence of this. Staff did say they received training from the provider when joining the service.