Unique Contact and Community Services Limited

Unique Contact and Community Services Limited provides personal care to adults, children and young adults under the age of 19, living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the service provided personal care to 10 people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service supported young people with learning disabilities and/or autism in line with these principles.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Relatives told us the service was safe for their family members. There were procedures to protect people from abuse. Risks associated with their needs were assessed and staff understood how to reduce these risks.

People were supported with their medicines, which were recorded by staff. Audits took place to check staff had followed correct medicine procedures. There was a procedure to review accidents and incidents in the service to prevent reoccurrence. Staff followed safe practices to prevent and control infections.

Staff were recruited safely and their backgrounds checked before they started working for the service. Staff were supported with training and development to ensure their skills and knowledge were up to date.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We have made a recommendation for the provider to source Mental Capacity Act (2005) training as part of its staff induction programme because some staff were unclear of its principles.

People were supported with maintaining their health and nutrition. The service worked in collaboration with health care professionals, to ensure their health needs were met.

Staff were respectful and caring towards people. Staff communicated with them appropriately, according to their communication needs. Staff understood the importance of promoting equality and diversity. However, we have made a recommendation for the provider to seek guidance on following current equalities legislation because their procedures were out of date.

People or their relatives were supported to make complaints or contact the office to discuss concerns they had. Care plans were personalised. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and attend community events or activities.

Staff felt supported by the management team. Quality assurance systems included obtaining feedback from people and relatives. The registered manager was committed to making continual improvements to the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (report published 27 January 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

The inspection took place on the 14 December 2016 and was announced. This was the service’s first inspection. We informed the provider 48 hours in advance of our visit that we would be inspecting. This was to ensure there was somebody at the location to facilitate our inspection.

Unique Contact and Community Services Limited is a domiciliary service providing support and personal care to mainly children and young adults in their home. At the time of the inspection nine people were receiving a domiciliary service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Relatives were happy with staff and that their family member was kept safe in their care when receiving support. Staff wore identification so relatives knew the staff member was from the correct service. Staff knew how to identify the different types of abuse and how to escalate within the service or to the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Risk was identified and assessed. Risk assessments were detailed to protect people from the risks of using equipment, going into the community and safely moving and handling them within their homes. Equipment was also checked by staff before use to ensure its safety.

Recruitment was carried out safely and the service checked that staff were of suitable character by verifying their documentation entitling them to work within the United Kingdom, a criminal records check, previous experience and references.

Medicines were not currently administered by the service but staff were trained in the safe management of medicines and explained how they would give them to people safely.

The risk of infection was minimised as staff exercised good hand hygiene when in people’s homes and wore personal protective equipment.

Staff were supported in their role to be effective and to have the skills and knowledge needed to support the people they cared for. Staff received training that was relevant to their role and were supervised regularly by deputy manager. Staff also received an annual appraisal to review the previous year’s work. Relatives were asked to give consent on behalf of their children but staff still asked the people they cared for their consent before delivering care.

Where food was prepared by staff it was done in a way that met people’s nutritional and religious needs.

Staff were caring towards the people they cared for and showed compassion when speaking to them and their relatives. Some relatives expressed the need to have care staff who could speak English well to support effective communication. We have made a recommendation about staff communicating more effectively with people and relatives.

People’s care plans were up to date and personalised to their needs. The service asked people where they could and people’s relatives to ensure they prepared care that met individuals needs.

Relatives spoke positively of the deputy manager but they advised they did not know who the registered manager of the service was. We have made a recommendation about people using the service are aware who the registered manager of the service is.

Staff enjoyed working at the service and felt they could easily approach the management team as they had an open door policy and were transparent with information.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service which included telephone monitoring, spot checks and audits of people’s care plans and other records relating to care.