Ur Care Solution Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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 leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation 17 (good governance) in relation to the lack of effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. The provider’s failure to assess monitor and mitigate risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users and staff. The provider’s failure to maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records in relation to staff and service users.

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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The culture of the service was not person-centred. The structure of the service and the location of the managers did not provide enough oversight or support a shared direction.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager did not have a good knowledge of the service, care processes, or the statutory requirements in the role. They were unable to answer basic questions relating to the management of the service and their own policies.

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

We contacted a number of staff via email. We received a standardised response from staff which suggested staff were not free to speak up. We attempted to make contact with most staff by phone and were unable to do so or they were unwilling to speak to us in detail.

The provider did not value diversity in their workforce. They did not work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were not being supported in line with sponsorship requirements by the provider. However, staff reported that they did not feel discriminated against by the management team.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had not identified any of the issues we found during the assessment. There was no action plan in place to make continuous improvement to the services. The provider did not carry out audits or have full oversight of the work the registered manager was carrying out. The registered manager had not conducted regular audits, identified the issues we found or escalated any of these issues to the provider. This meant people were at risk of receiving sub-standard care.

The service’s website listed care services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people which the provider was not registered to deliver. After we raised this with the registered manager the website was updated to remove this reference.

The provider’s statement of purpose was significantly out of date detailing a registered manager who had left the service 18 months previously, listed a previous address and an out of service contact number.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider had not built relationships with health and social care partners. There was no evidence provided to show that the service was collaborating with partners to improve the service.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had not identified or worked to improve any of the issues we found during the assessment.