Ur Care Solution Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care documents lacked person-centred information and were confusing and contradictory. For example, one person had two different dates of birth and 3 different ages recorded on their care plan. The registered manager told us one person was living with dementia which significantly impacted their life, but this was not reflected in their care plan.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider was unable to provide evidence of how they ensured care met people’s diverse needs. We were not assured that people received the support they commissioned due to the quality of the care records. People’s support networks were noted but there was no information about how or why people received support from other people such as family carers. This meant there was a risk of people not receiving continuity of care.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider’s information relating to people’s care and support was often contradictory and difficult to understand. Information was not available to people in different formats. Some care staff spoke multiple languages which meant they were able to communicate with people in their preferred language. However, the registered manager explained that some staff used online translators to speak to people as their English was heavily accented causing people to struggle to understand them.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider was unable to evidence their claim that they gathered feedback from clients on a monthly basis.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had not recorded information to help identify people who would be at risk of inequality in access. The registered manager was unable to explain or provide evidence to show how they ensured people were supported with this.

The provider did have out of hours processes in place to enable people to contact the service and this was detailed on care plans which were kept in people’s homes.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They had not identified people who were likely to experience inequalities. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

Care records were not regularly reviewed to identified issues with equality in experiences.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider did not have a suitable policy or process in place to support people at the end of their lives. Care plans did not record people’s preferences around end-of-life care. If people did not want to discuss this with the service it had not been recorded.