Ur Care Solution Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager had carried out initial assessments on people’s needs before they commenced care packages. We were not assured that people had been involved in these assessments directly. The information in the initial assessments was not reflected correctly in care plans. Regular reviews of care with people were not undertaken.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans were not person-centred. We could not be assured that people received support in line with their requirements. Daily records showed that one person received identical support every day including meals and medication, however the registered manager said the person wasn’t supported with medication. The daily records suggested staff were present from 7am to 10pm, while the care plan said the person received 1 care call a day for 45 minutes and the staff rota showed 4 care calls a day of 1 hour.

The provider did not work well across teams and services to support people. They did not share their assessment of people’s needs when moving between different services.

The provider had not worked with any other teams or services when supporting people. Staff were dispersed across the country, while the service was registered in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, staff were providing care to people in Greater London. The provider could not provide evidence to show how staff were supported by the management team across such a wide area.

The provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care records lacked information about how people were supported to live healthier lives. The registered manager shared information about how staff organised regular events for people in the community however this was incongruous with the location and of people receiving care.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had carried out no recent reviews of people’s care. The registered manager stated that one person’s care needs had changed over time which was why their care plan was out of date. We expect care plans to be updated as and when people’s needs change.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

The registered manager was unable to explain when a best interests decision would be required, how to carry out a best interests decision or how to support a person with fluctuating capacity. There was a best interests decision in place for one person which identified they had capacity to consent to care. However, the care plans and agreements were signed by the person’s husband. We would expect the person to have signed themselves, or information be provided about why it was signed for on their behalf.